Preamble

The House met at Twelve of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION, PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.

Return ordered,
of all the Draft Provisional Orders under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which in the Session of 1920 have been reported on by Commissioners; together with the names of the Commissioners; the first and also the last day of the sittings in each group; the number of days on which each body of Commissioners sat; the number of days on which each Commissioner has served; the number of days occupied by each Draft Provisional Order before Commissioners; the Draft Provisional Orders the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; and the Draft Provisional Orders the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved:
And also a Statement showing how all Draft Provisional Orders of the Session of 1920 have been dealt with."—[Mr. Munro.]

IRELAND.

SINN FEIN PROPOSALS.

MARTIAL LAW PROCLAIMED (S.W. AREA).

PRIME MINISTER'S ANNOUNCEMENT.

Mr. ASQUITH: May I ask the Prime Minister if he has any statement to make to the House in regard to Ireland?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I desire to make a statement to the House of Commons on the Irish position before we publish certain documents in Ireland. During the last few weeks the Government have been in touch with intermediaries who have been anxious to bring about a better understanding. There have been no negotiations, but certain people who offered their services have seen both sides and have thus enabled the Government to arrive at certain conclusions about the position in Ireland. As the result of their consideration, they
have, after a very careful survey of the situation, decided upon the course which I now propose to unfold to the House. They are convinced that the majority of the people of Ireland of all sections are anxious for peace and for a fair settlement. The Government on their side are no less anxious for peace and a fair and lasting settlement, and in this respect I feel confident they represent the views of the whole of the people of Great Britain. On the other hand, the Government are also very regretfully convinced that the party, or rather the section which controls the organisation of murder and outrage in Ireland, is not yet ready for a real peace, that is to say, for a peace that will accept the only basis on which peace can be concluded—a basis which would be consistent with the unbroken unity of the United Kingdom. Their communications are all conceived in the spirit of proposals from an independent belligerent power offering peace to another independent belligerent with whom they are at war, and to whom they are in a position to dictate.
In these circumstances the Government determined on the double policy which I propose now to declare. On the one hand they feel they have no option but to continue and indeed to intensify their campaign against that small but highly organised and desperate minority who are using murder and outrage in order to obtain the impossible and bring peace neither to Ireland nor to Great Britain, but, on the other hand, they are anxious to open and encourage every channel whereby the forces in Ireland which are really anxious for an honourable settlement can find expression and so lead to negotiations which may produce a real and lasting peace. This is the general policy of the Government, and I want the House to understand that this is a considered policy that aims on the one hand at the repression of crime and on the other at preparing the way towards a better understanding between the two peoples. Two very important documents have been received from Ireland in the course of the last few days. The first, and the most important of them, is a document which I have received from the Galway County Council. It is a very remarkable document, and it is remarkable from the fact that the Galway County Council, I be-
lieve, is almost entirely Sinn Fein. It has proclaimed its adhesion to the Republican party and I rather think to the Dail Eireann, which is supposed to be the assembly that speaks on behalf of this body.
They sent a resolution, which has already appeared in the Press. This, if I may so put it, is the first area of dry land which has shown itself after the deluge of unconstitutionalism in that part of the country. It is a return on the part of a very important body to constitutional methods—an avowed return. After all, the Galway County Council is a body set up under the authority of the Imperial Parliament. It derives its authority from this Parliament, and it is a constitutional xponent of the views of that particular part of the country. It has a full constitutional right to communicate with the Imperial Government upon any question which affects the peace of that area, and a communication from that body to the Imperial Government couched in these terms is in itself, I think, a very welcome sign of the new spirit coming over Ireland. I think it is our duty to encourage it, because in doing so we encourage a return to constitutional methods in an area which has been one of the most disturbed in Ireland, one of the most difficult in Ireland, and which, if I may use the term, has until quite recently been completely in the hands of the rebel forces in Ireland. It is only a very short time ago that I was talking to the General Officer Commanding that area, and his opinion at that time was that the recognition of authority would be difficult to establish in that county. This is, therefore, a very important and promising episode in the relations between the two countries. The resolution was carried, I believe, against the protests of the Sinn Fein leaders in that area. That makes it still more important. A similar resolution, not in exactly the same terms, but breathing the same spirit, was carried by the Galway Urban Council.
There is also a telegram which was sent to me by a distinguished, a very able and very highly respected Irish priest, Father O'Flanagan. It is true—and one must not forget it—that although he calls himself, in the absence of Mr, De Valera, acting president of Sinn Fein, his action has
been repudiated by the heads of the organisation which is responsible, in our judgment, for murder in Ireland. The House must bear in mind, when they come to seek the reason for our adopting a twofold policy, that, although Father O'Flanagan, speaking on behalf, as he thought, of at least one section of Sinn Fein, has indicated the desire for peace, yet the moment he sent that telegram he was repudiated by the heads of the organisation who are responsible for murder. That is why I say that, in my judgment, that organisation is not of the same opinion as the majority of people in Ireland at the present moment. We must base our policy upon a recognition of those two facts. The resolution of the Galway County Council has been very widely advertised in the Press, and rightly so. It condemns the murders. II condemns reprisals, but under the circumstances, I think it is too much to expect a Sinn Fein body not to express some condemnation of that character— they would lose their authority with Irish opinion if they did not. But it requires great courage on their part to condemn the murders committed by the Irish Re public Army, and let us frankly admit their courage in doing so. I may begin with that and it is the first resolution of the kind that I have received from any body. They say that they believe that this unfortunate state of affairs is detrimental to the interests of both countries in such a crisis of the world's affairs. That is quite true. Now they come to a practical suggestion—
We, therefore, as adherents of Dail Eireann, request that body to appoint three delegates.
They suggest that the initiative lies with the British Government, who should withdraw the bar on the meeting of Dail Eireann for the purpose of appointing delegates. That is the practical suggestion which they put forward. At the present moment that body is not permitted to meet, and of course we cannot recognise it, for to recognise it as a separate body is to recognise that the part of the country which they represent constitutes a separate republic apart from the United Kingdom. That cannot be, and it is right, that although I have said it here once or twice, that should be repeated, because, unfortunately, in Ireland they are apt to emphasise the things that suit them, and not to call attention to the things that do
not suit them. I do not think they are any exception in that respect to people in other parts of the world. It is necessary that that should be emphasised, because it is no use encouraging impossible hopes.
We do not, therefore, recognise the body called the Dail Eireann. But when you come to the members individually, they are the people who have been elected, under the constitution of this country to this House. They are the people who have been elected by the constituencies which have been parcelled out by this House, on a franchise which has been agreed upon by this House, at the general election at which this House of Commons was elected. They are not permitted to meet at the present moment, and the question is whether it is desirable that they should be permitted to do so in order to consider the new situation which has arisen in Ireland. There are very practical difficulties in the way. Some of these members have, in our judgment, been guilty of crimes which would make them liable to prosecution and punishment, whether in Ireland, or Great Britain, or in any other civilised country in the world. We cannot possibly grant to those who have been guilty of crimes of violence, of murder, of very brutal murder, a safe conduct which we would not grant to any British Member of the House of Commons in similar circumstances. It is too much to ask of any Government, however desirous they might be for peace in Ireland, that they should ask the forces of the Crown, who have been subjected to all these outrages, and whose comrades have been struck down through the action of these men to permit them to go through under the safe conduct of the British Government. We must therefore make an exception in the case of those men. This is the reply which it is proposed I should send to-day to the Secretary of the Galway County Council:
I have received your letter of the 4th instant, forwarding copy of a resolution passed by the Galway County Council, and wish to assure your Council that the Government welcome every indication on the part of representative persons and bodies in Ireland of a desire to co-operate in bringing to an end the present unhappy state of lawlessness and ensuring a return to constitutional methods in that country.
The first necessary preliminary to the re-establishment of normal conditions is that
murder and crimes of violence shall cease. It is to that end that the efforts of the Irish Executive have been constantly directed, and until it has been attained no progress can be made towards a political settlement.
The Government are prepared to facilitate the meeting together for this purpose of persons duly elected to represent constituencies in Ireland or any part of Ireland. There are, however, certain individuals who are gravely implicated in the commission of crime so serious that the Government cannot consent to abandon their elementary duty of bringing such persons to trial. To all members except these individuals a safe conduct would be granted by the Government. It should be clearly understood that His Majesty's Government must insist that effective measures be taken to ensure the cessation of murder and other crimes of violence and the surrender of all arms unlawfully held.
Before reading the next paragraph I should say that the Galway County Council did not recognise the authority of the Irish Local Government Board. They have now returned to their allegiance in that respect, and that in itself is a promising incident.
The letter proceeds:
I would add that the Government have learnt with satisfaction of the action of your Council in submitting their accounts to audit by the Local Government Board, and that the fullest support can be assured to every local authority which loyally carries out its obligations under the law.
It will be clear from this letter that the Government, while anxious to explore every avenue which may lead to peace, and to remove, so far as possible, any obstacle which may stand in the way of persons in Ireland who desire peace, are-determined to use all the forces at their command to stamp out murder and outrage, and to disarm ill-affected persons. With this object the Government has decided to take further action to which I shall refer later. Perhaps I had better, before doing so, read the telegram which has been sent in reply to the communications of Father O'Flanagan—
I have received your message. His Majesty's Government does not lag behind any section of the Irish people in the desire that Ireland should enjoy to the full the blessing of peace and prosperity. We are prepared to afford facilities for the free discussion of the whole situation by the duly-elected representatives of constituencies in Ireland or any part of Ireland. There are, however, certain individuals who are gravely implicated in the commission of crime so serious that the Government cannot consent to abandon their elementary duty of bringing such persons to trial. To all members except these individuals a safe conduct will be granted by the Government. It should
be clearly understood that His Majesty's Government must insist that effective measures be taken to ensure the cessation of murder and other crimes of violence and the surrender of all arms unlawfully held. I have in the House of Commons on the 16th August and on several subsequent occasions defined the fundamental conditions to which any political settlement must conform. His Majesty's Government adhere absolutely to those conditions, and would be glad to learn that the party which you represent are prepared to accept them.
That is the reply which it is proposed to send to Father O'Flanagan.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the names? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

The PRIME MINISTER: We are prepared to give a list of those with whom we will treat.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: My request is perfectly fair.

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. Let me say at once—I think it is very important to say it—that there should be no suspicion of any breach of faith if they do meet. What I mean is that it would be very unfortunate if the Members came to a conference under the impression that they had a safe conduct, and later the feeling was created that there had been an act of treachery on the part of the British Government. Nothing could be worse than that from the point of view of our honour and of the peace of Ireland. We shall certainly let them know beforehand who are the Members to whom we are prepared to give a safe conduct, and who are the Members to whom we could not possibly give a safe conduct. Due protection will be afforded to those who have a safe conduct by the police, and by the whole forces of the Crown who will be available against any possible attack upon them.
I come now to the second part of my statement. After a good many consultations which the Chief Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal—who is not here at present—and I have had with many individuals who stated that they were in communication with representative men in Ireland, which communications might be utilised in the interests of peace, we have come to certain conclusions. It is very difficult, of course, to know to what extent those persons can really speak on behalf of
those they assume to represent in this matter.
That is no imputation upon the good faith of those concerned—not the least. My right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Asquith) and I during the war had to measure the value of communications of that kind in reference to Germany, Austria, Turkey, and other countries, for there were constant communications with men who came with the very best faith and a certain amount of authority: As he knows very well, in the vast majority of cases, when we pursued the matter we found it ended in nothing. That was disappointing. Therefore that experience made me a good deal more cautious when I came to deal with men who professed to be in a position to make peace so far as Ireland is concerned.
However, it is our business to give them every opportunity, because peace is so very important. But one thing has to be made quite clear. I regret it. But as regards the men whom we know to be directing the murders, I think it will be found that they have not given us any indication that they are prepared to surrender upon the only terms which this country could possibly accept, consistently either with its own self-respect or with a prospect of enduring peace for Ireland. I very much regret that. We must consider that side by side with the encouragement which we are prepared to give to all those who are anxious for peace—and they are growing in numbers, in influence, and what is much more significant, in independence. This means that intimidation is breaking down. We are determined to do all in our power to break up these terrorists who are more or less organised, because I do not think it will be possible for Ireland to recover that independence which is essential to her if she is to make peace, until these men have been brought to justice or at any rate to surrender. We have, therefore, been driven to the conclusion, especially in the last two very terrible years, that we must take stronger action in certain disturbed areas in Ireland. I must say I came to that conclusion some time ago. There were, however, practical difficulties in the way, otherwise action would have been taken sooner.
What is the position, more particularly in the south-west of Ireland? You have got there organised insurgent forces.
Until recently they dwelt, I will not say in complete immunity, but in something approaching it, in their own towns and villages. The very strong action which has been taken has forced them to take to the hills, and there they are organising bands. They attack the police. They ambush the police. They intimidate men of their own race who are tired of this terrorism. It is necessary that they should be captured and broken up. The difficulties in the way are twofold. These men are dressed either as civilians —and therefore it is difficult for the police to identify them and distinguish between them and other civilians in the area—or they are dressed in captured British uniforms. Let me say this to the House, and I think it is right that it should be said: some of the outrages—and I had a special conversation upon the subject only yesterday with the Commander-in-Chief and General Tudor, as well as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary—have undoubtedly been committed by these people dressed in British uniforms. There was one very notable case, and that was the raid upon the Bishop of Killaloe. That was a raid upon the bishop's house by men with blackened faces.
It was supposed that they had raided it in order to find documents, but if so there was no reason why they should have blackened their faces, and certainly no documents have ever been delivered at Dublin Castle. We know absolutely nothing as to who those persons were individually, but we know where that outrage came from. That is an indication of the kind of thing that is going on where the blame is imputed to the forces of the Crown quite unjustly. Further, they have their own private quarrels; they sometimes wish for propaganda purposes to impute outrages to the forces of the Crown, and they have also got their own suspects. They know that information is given to the police and they think the persons that they attack are guilty of giving it. Often it is the wrong person, but they do not know that, and all that figures as if the outrages had been committed by the British soldiers or the police, and that is not true.
In this area an attack was made upon the police by men who were dressed in British uniforms and trench helmets. That has added to the difficulty. There you have men who are armed and are
either dressed like ordinary civilians or else are dressed in British uniforms, and it is quite impossible in that area for the police or the soldiers to hunt down these insurrectionary forces who are intimidating the country, and are guilty of murder, unless some very strong action is taken. We have decided to proclaim in that quarter of Ireland martial law and to mete out exactly the same treatment to these people as would be done if they were open rebels. There is no doubt at all that if these men were open rebels with some distinctive mark showing that they were rebels armed openly for the purpose of shooting down soldiers, the soldiers would not only have the right but it would be their duty to shoot back. Treachery should not be a protection. We are only meting out the ordinary rules of civilised warfare. I hope the House will not press me as to the exact area which is going to be proclaimed, because we want to have the notices in the areas before the actual areas are proclaimed. I must therefore very respectfully decline to specify the exact areas which are to be proclaimed.
What is proposed to be done is this. First of all there will be a proclamation of martial law, and then under that a proclamation will be issued. The effect will be to demand the surrender of all arms and uniforms by a certain date within that area. The surrender can be made either to an officer of the Crown, or to the police, or to a military officer, or to the parish priest provided the parish priest surrenders them afterwards to the proper officer in the area. That is in order to facilitate the surrender of arms. You will find men who will say, "We shall be afraid of coming in to surrender because we shall be shot." After all, what we want to encourage is the surrender of arms, and we propose to state that the arms can be surrendered to the parish priest, provided they are handed over immediately afterwards, by a given date.
The effect will be that after a certain date unauthorised persons found in possession of arms in the specified areas to which martial law is applied will be treated as rebels, and will be liable on conviction by a military court to the penalty of death. The same penalty will be applied to the unauthorised wearing of the uniforms of any of His Majesty's
forces, and to the aiding and abetting and harbouring of rebels. Reasonable time will be allowed for the surrender of arms before these drastic provisions are put into force. We hope to have the co-operation of the parish priest for these areas in arranging for the surrender Ample notice will be given to enable all persons in those areas who have been so misguided as to array themselves against order and law, and the authority of the Crown, to surrender their arms under the conditions specified. Trial will be by a military court. I deeply regret that it should be necessary to do this, or to declare martial law. I would infinitely have preferred that the control of the administration of the whole of Ireland should be in the hands of the civil authorities, but the recent outrages which have taken place have made it necessary that we should take these steps in this part of Ireland. We are eager for peace. We propose to encourage every authority, every organisation, every individual who is prepared to assist in the negotiations for peace in Ireland. We are, however, also convinced that peace is impossible so long as these forces are perpetrating outrage and intimidating the population, because the people themselves are afraid to talk peace. Where you have men of exceptional courage prepared to take the lead, like Mr. Sweetman in Galway, who, I think, is a Member of this House—and I have no doubt at all that the risk is great —the people follow, as they have done in Galway, quite unanimously. Father O'Flanagan is also a man of great courage, and he has shown that courage in the past. The moment they do so, however, they are repudiated by this gang, who are still endeavouring to intimidate the people and prevent them coming to a peaceable parley. I am sure that it is essential, in order to secure peace in Ireland, that you should convince the whole of the people in Ireland that the authority of the law and the authority of the Empire is paramount, and that we mean to keep it paramount; but that, having established that fact, the British House of Commons and the British nation are willing to parley with the people of Ireland with a view to establishing peace and goodwill and friendship.

Mr. ASQUITH: As there is no Question before the House, I can only address it
by permission. I should like to say—if it be necessary to put myself in order, I will conclude with a question to the Prime Minister—that the statement which has just been made is so grave in character, in both its aspects, that in my judgment and in the interests of both peace and order in Ireland, it would be desirable that the House should have time to reflect upon it, and that then, when that time has been given, the Government should, if the request be preferred, give us an opportunity of debating it. I venture to think that would be a much more expedient course than entering upon a debate now without consideration, when things might be said and probably would be said that might have the effect of injuring the prospect which we all have in view. I think the Government will probably take that view themselves. On the other hand, I am sure that they would desire that the House of Commons, in the consideration which the matter ought to have, should have an opportunity of discussing it in all its aspects. Therefore, the question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman is, whether he will accede to that request, if it be preferred to him?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS>: Before the Prime Minister replies, I should also like to ask him whether, having regard to the fact that an All Ireland Conference of railway men is convened for Tuesday week in Dublin—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—I do not know whether the House understands that it is essential to peace that the railway situation should be cleared up—I merely ask, having regard to the fact that that conference is convened for Tuesday week in Dublin, whether the proclamation of martial law will not interfere with facilities being given for delegates to attend that conference in Dublin?

Colonel MILDMAY: Does Father O'Flanagan speak on behalf of the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church?

Major O'NEILL: Might I ask a question arising out of the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement? As I understand it, he said that it was proposed to assemble, I think he used the words "a meeting of delegates duly elected by the people of Ireland from all parts of the country"?

The PRIME MINISTER: indicated dissent.

Major O'NEILL: I wanted to ask whether that is any new body of people or whether it is simply the Sinn Fein members of this Parliament?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: rose—

The PRIME MINISTER: I think I had better answer the questions which have been already put to me. If there are any other questions I shall certainly answer them later on. If I might respectfully say so, my right hon. Friend has taken the right course. Having regard to the situation in Ireland, however, and to the fact that I have made the statement to-day, it is essential that action should be taken immediately. If it had not been for the fact that the House might have felt that it was not respectful to it not to make the statement here first of all, we should have taken action and then have given intimation to the House of Commons. We felt, however, that it was right to make a statement here first, but action must be taken immediately for very obvious reasons which will appear to everybody. If the House feels that they desire a discussion upon the subject, well, of course, the Government will grant facilities, because we realise that it is a very grave step; but I would ask my right hon. Friend, and the observation applies also to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party, to consider carefully whether a discussion of that kind would in their judgment be helpful. I put this quite respectfully: whether they would consider that point before they finally make up their minds to ask for a discussion. I am not doubtful as to what they might say, but others would also speak. With regard to the question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), there will be no interference with the meeting of the Labour Conference on Tuesday week. With regard to the question put by my right hon. Friend (Colonel Mildmay), I am afraid that Father O'Flanagan can hardly be said to speak for the Roman Catholic Church—I think he has lately had a little quarrel with his own Bishop. Still, he is a very popular and powerful priest in Ireland.
With regard to the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend (Major O'Neill), I did not suggest that there should be any delegates appointed ad hoc. I simply said that the Government would give facilities for the meeting together of persons duly elected to represent constituencies in Ireland.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The question that I am going to ask is, I hope, in the interests of peace. I will not put into it one word that will in any way jeopardise peace. If we are in search of peace, and are prepared to give up ideas of vengeance—well, no doubt, with certain limited exceptions, certain bad exceptions—are we prepared, as one of the gifts of peace, to offer an amnesty?

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: May I ask the Prime Minister, with reference to the re quest made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite for an opportunity for discussion, does he realise there are certain points in the statement which he has just made which are capable, at any rate, of more than one interpretation. There are questions that arise out of it which it would be very desirable, from a good many points of view, to have elucidated, as soon as possible, in view of the consequences that might follow from the action the Government has taken. One thing I have in my mind, which a good many Members would like to know, is what effect the meeting of this body in Dublin may have on the policy of the Government with regard to the Bill now going through Parliament. There are questions of that sort which it is very desirable should be under stood. Obviously, misunderstanding might arise, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consider seriously the request of the right hon. Gentle man opposite from that point of view.

Mr. ADAMSON: I quite understand the importance of the suggestion that has been made by the Prime Minister as to the care that ought to be taken when a question of this kind is under consideration. I am going to suggest to him that the matter might be left over until Monday, until we have had time to reflect over it, and then I, or someone on my behalf, can put it to the Prime Minister whether we consider it desirable the matter should be discussed.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies may I ask, if he does yield to this demand for a discussion, which in the opinion of many of us is not likely to lead to peace, will he undertake not to let it delay the carrying out of the policy which he has announced?

1.0 P.M.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think I made it clear that we could not possibly allow any delay. That would be mischievous. With regard to the question lout by the hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), that would be a matter for discussion when peace is made. It is not a question to be considered at this stage. When peace is made, amnesty and similar questions always come up for discussion. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. K. McNeill), who I know is very anxious for peace, he will see when he reads the document which I read to the House that I made it clear that we do not depart from the conditions I laid down in the House of Commons with regard to an Irish settlement. After all, the first thing is the consideration, not of the terms of settlement, but of the arrangements that will promote peace and a cessation of violence in Ireland. We cannot get the necessary atmosphere to discuss it unless there is a cessation of this violence. That is the first step. I have already made it clear that if any section of the House is anxious to have a discussion on this subject, although I am in agreement with my hon. Friend behind me (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) and fear it would not be helpful, yet if, on their responsibility, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite think otherwise, the Government of course cannot refuse an opportunity for discussion.

Sir D. MACLEAN: We should not think of putting down a formal Motion under the circumstances, and the best way I can suggest would be a Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. THOMAS: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider, in order to avoid misunderstanding, publishing the names of those who will be per-
mitted to attend this meeting. I am sure, if the House reflects a moment, nothing could be more dangerous, as the Prime Minister said, than misunderstanding; and if they have the names now, surely misunderstanding would be avoided by their being published!

The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure my right hon. Friend that is one of the questions that is causing us great anxiety. We came to the conclusion that on the whole it was better not at this stage to publish the names. A good deal depends on the spirit in which the offer we have made is received by the other side.

Mr. R. McNEILL: In reference to the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I understood him to say that when his statement is read it will be found he declared there was to be no change with regard to the essential principles of settlement. I listened very attentively to the statement, and I understood him to say the only thing he laid down as a sine quâ non was the maintenance of the Union, or words to that effect. Listening to him, there appeared to be a good deal of ambiguity, and perhaps that can be cleared up.

The PRIME MINISTER: I referred in the reply to Father O'Flannagan to the statement I made to the House on 16th August, when I laid down a series of conditions which I am still convinced are essential.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered, seeing that this matter is of such vital importance to the country, the holding of a secret Session of this House to-morrow, in order that things may be said which, although they might be injurious if they were given to the world, might be useful in coming to a decision?

Major O'NEILL: There is one point which has not been made clear, and it is this: The Leader of the House, the day before yesterday, stated it was the intention of the Government to go on with the Government of Ireland Bill. Is that still their intention?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Roads Bill, Gold and Silver (Export Control, &c.) Bill, Motions relating to Government of India Act, 1919 (Draft Rules), Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) [Compensation]

Report, and on Consideration of Lords Amendments to Women and Young Persons (Employment in Lead Processes) Bill be not interrupted this day at Five or half-past Five of the clock, and may be entered upon at any hour although opposed."— [Lord Edmund Talbot.]

The House divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 22.

Division No. 401.]
AYES.
[1.5 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Gregory, Holman
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Greig, Colonel James William
Neal, Arthur


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Atkey, A. R.
Guest, Major O. (Leic., Loughboro')
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nield, Sir Herbert


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W. D'by)
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Barrand, A. R.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Beck, Sir C. (Essex, Saffron Walden)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith
Hood, Joseph
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Pratt, John William


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Purchase, H. G.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hurd. Percy A.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Reid, D. D.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Johnstone, Joseph
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm.,W.)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanellv)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Seddon, J. A.


Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lonsdale, James Rolston
Simm, M. T.


Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Lorden, John William
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Stevens, Marshall


Dawes, James Arthur
Lynn, R. J.
Stewart, Gershom


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Taylor, J.


Dixon, Captain Herbert
M'Guffin, Samuel
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Donald, Thompson
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Elveden, Viscount
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Matthews, David
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Whitla, Sir William


Forrest, Walter
Mitchell, William Lane
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Moles, Thomas
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Winterton, Major Earl


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Morris, Richard
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gilbert, James Daniel
Mosley, Oswald
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Grant, James A.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert



Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Murchison, C. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr




Parker.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Kenyon, Barnet
Spencer, George A.


Bromfield, William
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D.(Midlothian)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cape, Thomas
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Myers, Thomas
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Glanville, Harold James
Rose. Frank H.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)



Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sitch, Charles H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hogge and Major Entwistle

IMPRISONMENT OF A MEMBER.

Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had received the following letter:—

The Right Honourable

The Speaker,

House of Commons,

London, S.W.1.

6th December, 1920.

Sir,

I have the honour to report that on the 6th day of December, 1920, Mr. Michael Stains, M.P. for St. Michans constituency, Dublin, was arrested under a direction issued by me, as competent military authority, under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and was committed to His Majesty's Prison, Dublin Castle.

I have the honour to be

Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

G. F. BOYD,

Major-General,

Competent Military Authority.

ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1920…21).

Estimate presented,—of the further Sum required to be voted for the Army for the year ending 31st March, 1921, to meet Expenditure not provided for in the original Army Estimates of the year in respect of the garrisons in Mesopotamia and elsewhere, of national factories and other services transferred from the Ministry of Munitions, and of charges arising out of the late War [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 233.]

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 235.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 235.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 259.]

REGISTRAR GENERAL (SCOTLAND) BILL

Reported, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 236.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 236.]

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — ROADS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Levying by county councils of duties on mechanically-propelled vehicles and other carriages.)

(1) The duties on licences for mechanically-propelled vehicles (in this Act referred to as "vehicles"), imposed by section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by this Act, and the excise duties on licences for carriages imposed by section four of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, shall, as from the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, be levied by county councils in accordance with provisions to be made for the purpose by Order in Council.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any Order in Council made under this section, every county council and their officers shall, as from the said first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, have within their county for the purpose of levying the duties aforesaid (in this Act-referred to as "the said duties"), the same powers, duties, and liabilities as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise and their officers have with respect to duties of excise, and to the issue and cancellation of licences on which duties of excise are imposed, and other matters under the Acts relating to duties of excise and excise licences, and all enactments relating to those duties and to punishments and penalties in connection therewith shall apply accordingly.

(3) Every county council shall, subject to the provisions of any Order in Council made under this section, have as respects the said duties and licences the powers given by the said Acts to the Treasury for the restoration of any forfeiture and the mitigation or remission of any penalty or any part thereof.

(4) The duties levied by a county council under this section shall be paid into the Exchequer in such manner and in accordance with such directions as may be contained in any Order in Council made under this section.

(5) Provision may be made by Order in Council under this section for enabling the Minister to give such directions to county councils as he thinks necessary for securing uniformity of administration and otherwise for carrying the provisions of this Act and of any such Order into effect, and it shall be the duty of county councils to comply with any directions so given.

(6) An Order in Council made under this section may be revoked, varied, or amended, by a subsequent Order so made.

General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "in accordance with pro-
visions to be made for the purpose by Order in Council."
I put down this Amendment in order to enter a protest against the growing custom of legislation by Orders in Council, which takes away powers from this House, and, in this particular Bill, really leaves all these important matters of road transport in the hands of the Minister of Transport.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr.Neal): I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend does not intend to press this Amendment, and my remarks on it, therefore, need only be brief; but I think that if hon. Members will look at the provisions which are to be made by Order in Council, they will find that they are really matters which are quite suitable for that form of treatment, and are not, in fact, legislation. In order to meet the views which were expressed on the Second Reading, we have issued as a Command Paper a preliminary draft of the Order in Council which we propose to make under this particular Section. It is not, perhaps, in the final form in which it will be submitted to His Majesty in Council, but I think that a perusal of it will relieve my hon. and gallant Friend and other Members of any suspicion that there is any attempt here to usurp the proper and legitimate functions of Parliament.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: I will get a copy from the Vote Office. I do not press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir F. BLAKE: I beg to move in Subsection (5), after the word "Minister" ["enabling the Minister to give"], to insert the words "after consultation with the county councils."
This is an Amendment which constantly comes up when Bills affecting the county councils are concerned. I think it is a perfectly reasonable Amendment and one that anyone can understand a council whose administration is affected specially by Orders in Council would desire to have put into the Bill. We very gladly recognise that hitherto the Minister and all those associated with him have kept in the closest touch with the county councils, but unfortunately we cannot be sure that the present Minister and those with whom he is acting will be always there, and
therefore, as this is a matter of Orders in Council, and that when matters are dealt with in this House the county councils cannot express their view, we ask that the same good relations which have been established and hitherto maintained between the new Ministry of Transport and the county councils should be preserved and that before making these Orders in Council they should consult the county councils.

Mr. NEAL: I am very sorry I cannot accede to the very kindly expressed request of my hon. Friend, but we have anticipated him in this matter, and in drafting the Order in Council we have availed ourselves of consultation with the County Councils Association, but my hon. Friend has recognised that that has been the policy of the Ministry throughout when dealing with county councils. It is not expected that these Orders in Council will have to be made more than once though they may be renewed from time to time.

Amendment negatived.

Sir F. BLAKE: I beg to move in Subsection (5) to leave out the words "and otherwise" ["uniformity of administration and otherwise"] and to insert instead thereof the words "in the collection of such duties."
The expression "and otherwise" is so wide that we hope to get some explanation from the Minister as to what it means. We do not quite know what is included in it.

Mr. NEAL: There are a number of matters which are not strictly necessary for securing uniformity of administration, but which are necessary for carrying the provisions of the Act into force. When my hon. Friend has an opportunity of looking at the draft orders he will see exactly what they are and I think he will agree that they are perfectly innocuous.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (5), to insert new Sub-sections—
(6) Before any Order in Council under this section is made notice of the proposals to make the Order, and of the places where copies of the draft of the Order can be obtained, shall be published in the London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Gazette, as the case may require, and in such other manner as may be necessary to ensure publicity.
(7) Any Order in Council shall be forthwith laid before Parliament and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Order is so laid praying that any such Order may be annulled His Majesty may annul such Order, and it shall henceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done there under.
While I agree that Orders in Council may perhaps reasonably be made in regard to administrative points such as these, I still think the House ought to reserve to itself the right we have had in previous Bills latterly of insisting on these Orders being laid on the table of the House. The words of the Amendment are taken directly from provisions inserted by the House in the Ministry of Transport Bill of last year in regard to Orders in Council which that Act gave the Minister power to make. It is only right that if we should give the Minister power to make certain Orders in Council, he should at least lay them on the table of the House, and publish them in the London, Edinburgh and Dublin Gazettes in order that everyone may know what they are, because they are to have the force of Statutes made by the House, and I can see no possible objection to incorporating in this Bill the same sort of words that the House of Commons put in the Transport Act last year.

Mr. NEAL: I hope my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press the point. As a general principle I am not disposed to quarrel in the least with the desirability of submitting draft Orders in Council to the consideration of Parliament, but in the present case we have endeavoured to meet it in the way which I intimated on the first Amendment. The Finance Act becomes operative as from 1st January next. The Orders in Council which are to be made under this Clause are nothing new. They follow on the lines of Orders in Council which were made with reference to the petrol duty, and it is quite obvious that it will be impossible to take any proceeding such as laying them on the table of the House, and waiting for the assent of Parliament and get them operative by 1st January. Under these circumstances, and having regard to the nature of these Orders, and that we are following strictly the precedents with reference to the matter, I shall be grateful if the hon. baronet does not think it necessary to press this.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to meeting us. I did not press my Amendment be cause I hoped the Government would be able to accept this, which is a most necessary matter. If in this instance it is necessary that the Order in Council should be passed so as to become operative by 1st January, and therefore we should not have full time to lay it before the House in the ordinary way, would he consider the introduction of an Amendment by which any future Orders in Council would be laid. I appreciate very much the courtesy with which the Minister of Transport met us in supplying us with copies of draft Orders in Council which we asked for on the Second Reading, which goes a long way towards meeting my difficulty, but I think we ought to be covered in future Orders in Council.

Mr. NEAL: I will give most favourable consideration to that suggestion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed
"That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I take it the Clause applies to Ireland.

THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): Yes.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: These licences are to be collected by county councils, and it may be that there will be difficulties in getting these duties collected by county councils in Ireland. I do not want to raise political questions but it is at least possible that some county councils in Ireland may refuse to collect the duties on behalf of the Imperial Government. I understand payments are going to be made out of the General Road Fund for the benefit of the roads in Ireland. I think it would be only right that the payments out of the Road Fund to Ireland should be limited to the amount of taxation received from Ireland. I do not think the same would apply to Scotland because a great deal of the, traffic on the Scotch roads is English people travelling in order to have the benefit of the salubrious atmosphere of the Highlands Therefore it is perhaps fair that Scotland should have the excess out of the Road Fund of the amount which Scotland contributes. Rut I think there should be some understanding in regard to the amount proposed to be given from the General Road Fund
for Irish roads, particularly in view of the possibility of some Irish Councils not collecting their necessary quota. I do not propose to press the Amendment, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to give it very careful consideration., and to see whether he can either make some statement now, or give us some undertaking that the matter shall be considered before any grants are made out of the Road Fund.

Mr. LINDSAY: I quite agree with what the hon. Baronet said generally, but I really must protest against his suggestion as to the financial position. I do not want to introduce politics, but if say the Kerry County Council decline to act then would it be fair that the money should be withdrawn for the Antrim County Council? I suggest in this matter the right hon. Gentleman should not deal with Ireland as a whole but in parts.

Sir E. GEDDES: The point raised by the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) is one which is before us and I will ask the House to provide for alternative machinery in the case of Irish local authorities which decline to act. On the other point this has only significance until the Home Rule Bill comes into effect. I would press the hon. Baronet not to endeavour to obtain statutory limitations to the amount contributed to Ireland. It cannot last very long, and in the past it has been limited quite satisfactorily on the lines suggested. It would cause very great difficulty now in the present disturbed condition if we were to lay down a position dealing differently with roads which are continuous from one county to another. We will deal with the other point.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman has opened up rather an important issue. He says that the Home Rule Bill is going to bring this question to an end and I think the House is entitled to know how. Under the Home Rule Bill will the licence duties of mechanically propelled vehicles be considered a part of the general volume of taxation which goes into the British net? If so how are you going to distinguish between what is justly paid to Ireland and what ought to be kept in this country?

Sir E. GEDDES: All these services will be transferred to Ireland.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: And it will get the benefit of the whole of the money raised?

Sir E. GEDDES: Of its own money.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Payment out of Consolidated Fund to local taxation accounts and Road Fund.)

(1) There shall be charged on and issued out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof, in accordance with the directions of the Treasury, a sum equal to the proceeds of the said duties and of all other sums paid into the Exchequer under this Act.

(2) Out of the sum to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund under this Section there shall be paid in every year to the Local Taxation Account and the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account the sum of five hundred and thirty-six thousand, nine hundred and fifty-four pounds, eight shillings, and the sum of sixty-four thousand and one pounds, seventeen shillings respectively.

The sum so paid into the Local Taxation Account shall be applied in paying to the councils of counties in England and Wales sums equal to the amounts certified by the Minister of Health to have been collected by those councils respectively during the year ending on the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and nine in respect of the duties on carriage licences, and the sum so paid into the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account shall be distributed in the same manner as the proceeds of the duties on carriage licences collected in Scotland were distributed in the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and twenty.

The Treasury, in conjunction as respects England and Wales with the Minister of Health, and as respects Scotland with the Secretary for Scotland, may make such adjustments in respect of the payments to be made under the foregoing provision for the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-one as are necessary for securing that local authorities shall, in respect of that year, receive the aforesaid amounts in respect of the duties on carriage licences.

(3) The balance of the sum to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund under this Section after deducting the sums to be paid to the local taxation accounts under this Section shall be paid into the Road Fund to be established under this Act.

Mr. HOHLER: I beg to move in Subsection (2) to leave out the words "the sum of five hundred and thirty-six thousand nine hundred and fifty-four pounds, eight shillings, and the sum of sixty-four thousand and one pounds
seventeen shillings respectively" and to insert instead thereof the words
those sums equal to the amounts collected by the county councils of the Counties of England and Wales for the year ended thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-one.
No doubt this proposal would involve an increased payment to the county councils, but I submit that is only just and fair seeing the great increase in the cost of the roads and the increased taxation in enormously larger licence duties in respect of motor traffic. The sum I would propose to insert would amount to about a million pounds. On 25th March of this year an hon. Member asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
What sum of money is guaranteed to local authorities in lieu of the carriage licence duties under Section 88 of the Finance Act, 1909…10, and the proceeds of such duties in the year ending 31st March, 1909, and in the last financial year respectively?
The reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was:
The net amount due to local authorities in Great Britain in lieu of carriage licences is £600,856.
That is a larger sum than is stated in this Bill.
The reply continued:
The actual net proceeds of the duties in the year 1908…9 were £949,937 6s. 8d.
I submit that the county councils are entitled at least to the sum they received in the year 1918…19.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I hope that the Government will not yield to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member. There is a great volume of opinion that this £600,000 ought not to be diverted from road purposes to general county objects. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been permitted to add to the £536,000 mentioned the sum which is given to Scotland, which, I believe, makes up the £600,000, which is the amount payable to the local authorities under the arrangement come to in 1909. That arrangement was made at a time when a higher licence duty was put on motor vehicles, and it was then considered reasonable that the old Licence Duty, which up to that time was collected chiefly on carriages, should go to the purposes for which it had been allocated under previous legislation. Since that time conditions have changed very much. I hope that the Minister of
Transport will give us some indication that this £600,000 diverted from road purposes will eventually, and I hope soon, be put back to the legitimate use of improving roads. The Departmental Committee presided over by Sir Henry May-bury, which went exhaustively into the whole matter, report that this sum of £600,000 paid to the local authorities, not for roads, but for general purposes, should not be taken from the roads if it can be provided from any other source. If it is not possible to do this at present I recommend that the matter should be adjusted without prejudice to the local authorities on the next occasion when the arrangements are revised. We cannot on this occasion expect the right hon. Gentleman to give us any Amendment, but we do ask for a declaration of policy, because the total amount provided by these duties is not transferred to the roads, and it is most necessary that the money should be brought back into the fund from which it was taken.

Mr. NEAL: I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment. I can adopt without alteration nearly the whole of what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness). This one subject of the Bill is money raised from a particular class of persons for a particular purpose for the maintenance and improvement of the highway. Very great difficulty has arisen as to whether any portion of that money ought to be diverted from that purpose to such purposes as those now under discussion. The Departmental Committee came to the conclusion that, although it was not perhaps strictly just, yet for the present was impracticable to avoid it. Therefore the sum was taken at £600,000, but if the two sums named in the Clause are added together that might continue to be paid out of the special fund for the present until Parliament came to some other conclusion, What the hon. and learned Member is seeking to do is to open one of the most difficult problems, namely, the difference between national and local finance. He is going back upon the whole problem of assessment revenue and stabilisation of sums in the year 1909. Of course, the bargains have not turned out well in many instances for the local authorities, but the hon. and learned Member will appreciate that this is not a convenient opportunity to deal with what, after all,
is a very small part of a very large question.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: I desire to support the views put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness). We are most anxious that this tax should all go to roads. We are glad to hear that the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to accept the Amendment, which I hope will not be allowed to be withdrawn, but will be negatived. The Committee does not wish that these taxes intended for a certain purpose should be frittered away. I am pleased to find that the Ministry of Transport are in sympathy with the recommendations that have been made on the subject. At present the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not see his way, but I hope that we may ask the Minister of Transport to press this view on the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his next Budget so that this tax may be paid in full for the purpose for which it was intended.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Establishment of Rood Fund.)

(1) There shall be established for the purposes of this Act, in accordance with regulations to be made by the Treasury for the purpose, a fund to be called the Road Fund, and subject to such regulations as may be made by the Treasury with respect to accounts and investments, the Road Fund shall be subject to the control and management of the Minister.

(2) There shall be transferred or paid to the Road Fund all moneys which on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, are standing to the account of the road improvement grant or are payable to that account, and all investments representing accumulations of money standing to the account of the road improvement grant shall be transferred to such persons as the Treasury may direct, and shall, subject to the provisions of any regulations made by the Treasury under the foregoing Sub-section, be held by those persons for the purposes of the Road Fund.

(3) There shall be paid out of the Road Fund in every year—

(a) to every county council by whom the said duties are levied such amount in respect of the expenses properly incurred by that council in or in connection with the levying of the duties, and in issuing licences to drivers of vehicles as may be prescribed by regulations made under this Act with the consent of the Treasury:
2633
(b) to every local or police authority such sum as the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine to represent the amount which would, if this Act had not been passed, have been received by the authority on account of fees or charges for the licensing of mechanically-propelled hackney carriages:
(c) such part of the expenses incurred by and in connection with the Roads Department of the Ministry of Transport, including the salaries of the staff of that Department as the Minister may from time to time, with the approval of the Treasury, determine to be expenses so incurred in the administration of this Act:
(d) any sums paid by the Minister in respect of the salaries and establishment charges of engineers or surveyors to local authorities under subsection (2) of section seventeen of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919:
(e) all expenses incurred by any other Government Department in connection with the collection of the said duties or otherwise in the administration of this Act:
and, subject to payment of the sums aforesaid and of any sums to be repaid to a police authority out of the Road Fund under any other provision of this Act, the moneys standing to the credit of the Road Fund shall be applied by the Minister for the purposes of Part II. of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, as amended by this Act.

(4) The Minister shall cause an account to be prepared and transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General for examination on or before the first day of October in every year, showing the receipts into and issues out of the Road Fund in the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March preceding, and the Comptroller and Auditor General shall certify and report on the same, and the account and report shall be laid before Parliament on or before the thirty-first day of January in the following year if Parliament be then sitting, and if Parliament be not then sitting, within one week after the next meeting of Parliament.

(5) The Minister shall make an annual report to Parliament of his proceedings under this Act and under Part II. of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, as amended by this Act.

Sir W. JOYNSON-H1CKS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["Fund shall be"], to insert the words "subject to the advice of the Roads Advisory Committee."
"Under Clause 3 a large sum, over £8,000,000, is to be at the disposal of the Minister, under his absolute control, and management without any controlling authority whatever. Looking at the Chinese Paper which my right hon. Friend published a few days ago with
regard to the sums given him under the provisions of the Roads Development Improvements Act, 1909, as amended by this Bill we will see what very large powers he has. He may make an advance to any highway authority for the construction of new roads and the maintenance or improvement of existing roads, or any company or person—I take it any company or person concerned with roads improvement maintenance and new construction—may come to the Minister and get very large grants out of the fund which is entirely at the disposal of the Minister without any control whatever. They may construct new roads, maintain existing roads, repair them, contribute to the cost of any such work, and for purposes like the improvement of roads, including widening a road, cutting off corners, levelling, and the provision of bridges, viaducts, footways, and subways. Those are very large powers. The Minister is also able compulsorily to acquire land if it is needed for road-making. The powers are given without control by county councils or anyone else.
When the Act establishing the Ministry was going through the House some of us made some rude remarks about the Minister, in expressing our fear that he would not be inclined to consider the roads as against the railways. Those time are past, and we are all concerned now to help my right hon. Friend to do his utmost for the improvement of the roads of the country. The House appointed by Statute a Roads Advisory Committee. We took three days in Committee upstairs hammering out the Clause which established that Committee. The Committee consists of a chairman nominated by the Minister, five representatives of the great local authorities, namely county councils and road authorities, and five representatives of the road users of the country. There could not be a better committee to advise my right hon. Friend on any road question. County councils on the one side can advise as to road improvements that are necessary and as to the need of new roads. On the other hand are the road users, among whom is included a representative of the Royal Agricultural Society in order that horse traffic might be adequately represented. Parliament set up that Committee for a purpose. It was not intended purely for amusement. But the Committee has met only twice
since Parliament set it up, and it is not performing the function which Parliament expected it to perform.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Why has it not met?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is summoned by officials of the Ministry when they desire to have a meeting. We had a meeting the week before last and a great deal of work was done. That Committee might be made of real importance to the Ministry. Suppose my right hon. Friend wants to make a new road, say, in Cornwall or Yorkshire. The moment that fact is made known there will be questions in this House and representatives of other districts will ask, "Why cannot we have a" new road as well as the districts chosen?" The Minister will be able lo reply, "This road has been sanctioned by the Roads Advisory Committee which is a statutory and independent body. They have thoroughly considered the whole question of roads from one end of England to another and they are of opinion that the road is a vital necessity." I suggest this Amendment, not because I think the Committee should paramount over the Minister. I use the word "paramount" advisedly. Time was when I tried to control the Minister, but I found it far too difficult. The utmost I could dc was to seek to give him advice. The Advisory Committee, of which I have the honour to be a member, is neglected by the Ministry. I do not think it is deliberately neglected. It is a small question concerning his officials. If the Amendment is accepted it will imply only that the Minister shall be subject to the advice of the Committee. If my right hon. Friend does not like the word "subject" let him choose some other word. He can ask for the Committee s advice, but he need not take it.

Sir E. GEDDES: I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view of the Mover of this Amendment. When the original scheme was conceived in 1909 for devoting certain hypothecated revenues to the improvement of the roads, the sum involved was comparatively small. In the first year it was £700,000 and it grew to something like £2,000,000 At that time the arrangement sanctioned by Parliament was that a Roads Board should
have control of the disposal of that money. Then the Roads Board was brought to an end and the Ministry of Transport was established, and it took over the function of the Roads Board. Under the present proposal the income of the Department now charged with the roads is a large sum. It ought not to be spent without adequate opportunity for this House to see that it is properly spent I agree that we must look at the matter from a different point of view to-day because it is a much larger sum. The reason why this fund does not come on the estimates in the ordinary way is that it is hypothecated revenue, and we carry it forward and invest it and do not surrender our balances. What opportunity has this House of considering the way in which this money is spent? It can raise the subject on the salary of the Minister or on the Estimates for the Roads Department. That gives it the opportunity, if it has the material before it, of criticising any forecast as to the disposal of the money. We are under a statutory obligation to present to Parliament an annual report and annual accounts. Those accounts deal, of course, with the money that has been spent. It is laid down in the Ministry of Transport Act that they must be prepared up to a certain date and be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I think it is reasonable that an opportunity should be given to this House to know what we are about to do, on the lines of an Estimate, with the money that is coming in in future. I accept that principle and will try to give effect to it. Let us consider the proposal put forward in the Amendment. My hon. Friend says he was largely instrumental in obtaining the appointment of the Advisory Committee.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS>: I did not say that.

Sir E. GEDDES: I think my hon. Friend was largely instrumental in obtaining the Committee, and I would like to give him credit for it, because I think it is a useful part of the organisation. Let us see how the Committee works. At the time it was set up it was said, "You must not limit the Committee; you must make it free. It must be entitled to consider anything it likes." My hon Friend looked at me and I noted in his voice a reproach that the Committee has not been more used. The hon. Member made a mistake when
he said that I appoint the chairman. It is provided that the chairman shall be elected by the Members of the Advisory Committee from among themselves. I appoint the secretary. The Committee is representative of the road users and the road-owning authorities, and the members come from all parts of the country, including Ireland and Scotland. It is provided that the Committee
may make regulations as to their procedure and method of voting, and may at their discretion consider and report to the Minister upon any matters affecting the construction, improvement or maintenance of the roads or bridges or the regulation of traffic thereon.
When the Committee was appointed, I remember that I said that we would give it the fullest possible scope. The Minister has no power to go to them for advice, although I do not say that they would decline to exercise their discretion to give advice. The Committee is absolutely free. I have no power to summon them. I have no specific power to refer anything to the Committee. It is not the business of the Minister or any official of the Ministry to summon the meetings of the Committee, to regulate its conduct or to prepare its agenda. We provide a secretary and the Committee does the rest. It has only met twice. Possibly the reason for that is that one of the most active members (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) was away in India for a long time. I have no doubt he would have—

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Stirred them up.

Sir E. GEDDES: I have no doubt he would have been very active. That mere fact shows to my mind the impossibility of using the Advisory Committee for the day to day work of sanctioning expenditure, etc. Imagine the position, with a Committee drawn from all parts of the country, if we had to have them sitting from day to day while we were dealing with the recent question of arterial roads and the contributions to be made to them. Advisory Committees are very useful, but I think they are more useful when they have matters referred to them for advice rather than when they are left to regulate their own activities, because in the first case the working of the departmental machine provides materials for them to consider. However, this Advisory Committee was appointed in this way and constituted in this way and given
its present powers. It has only met twice, but I have no doubt it will meet more frequently. Its very constitution and the way its membership is scattered do not make it a useful machine for day to day work. I would ask hon. Members to go back with me to what preceded the Advisory Committee. It was the Roads Board.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to this provision in the first Clause with respect to the setting up of the Advisory Committee.
For the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Minister with respect to and for safeguarding any interests affected by the exercise of the powers and the performance of his duties under the Act.
I submit that that provision does imply that the Minister has the distinct power of going to this Committee for advice and assistance with respect to, and the safeguarding of, any interests affected by the exercising of any powers which he possesses. That was why the Committee was appointed by Parliament. I rather demurred when he said he had no powers. That provision gives him ample power to consult the Committee. It was the object of the Committee to safeguard the interests of anything affected by what he does. If the Committee is not told what he is going to do, how can it safeguard the interests committed to it by Parliament?

2.0 P.M.

Sir E. GEDDES: The hon. Baronet has read out the first Clause, but the procedure of the Committee is regulated by Clause 4, which I read. The Committee may make their own Regulations and advise upon any matter at their discretion. I do not wish it to be understood that I desire to remain aloof from the Committee. Advisory Committees fulfil a very useful function, but I do not think, for the reasons I have given, that an Advisory Committee constituted like this is the most useful body for regular day to day work. The Roads Board existed from 1910 to 1919. It was a smaller body, and it had direct responsibility. It was one of those parts of the constitutional machine set up in exceptional circum stances with financial responsibility, but with no Department responsible for their actual work. The Roads Board between 1910–19 consisted of five honorary members, with a paid chairman, and it held 41 meetings, or 4.5
meetings a year. Here is a typical agenda. They went through the financial statement of receipts, expenditure and investment. They considered the grants made since the last meeting, and they considered a report of applications which had been received and any other business. Being a small body they were more easily got together. Most of them either lived or had residences in London and came up here for their work. Therefore, we had two kinds of committees: one drawn from all parts of the country composed of busy men who could not be in constant attendance. These decisions are taken from day to day, and grants are made. Undertakings are given from day to day, and promises are made. If the Minister is to be responsible to Parliament, even with all the modifications which my hon. Friend introduced at a later stage of his speech as to the class of advisory work he suggested, I do not think that Parliament or this Committee would wish that an advisory committee of that kind should have the power to sanction certain moneys being devoted from time to time to different objects. That is daily work done from day to day.
I ask hon. Members to consider what is the real Parliamentary control over this fund. We have an Annual Report of what is being done, which shows the way the fund is going. There are considerable investments in this fund. An annual account is submitted. The whole of the expenditure of the Roads Department comes before Parliament. That we shall come to later. There is ample opportunity for discussing road finance in prospect. Parliament ought to know, and those who are interested ought to know, the road finance in prospect, and there is nothing to prevent the Advisory Committee going into these matters if it wishes. I would welcome it. They have absolute power to do so.
I will see whether I cannot so adjust the issue of the annual Report as to make it come in at a useful time, so that Parliament can have before it, as nearly as possible in the form of an Estimate, a statement upon which they can criticise the future expenditure of the Road Board and its future income from year to year. Parliament will have the opportunity of discussing that. The Roads Advisory Committee can within their discretion advise the Minister upon it, and that
Report will be available, and when the Estimates come up for the Director-General of Roads and his engineering staff, and on the Minister's salary, Parliament will have an opportunity of raising any question. I suggest that that is the more convenient way of dealing with it, and I ask the Committee to consider whether the proposals which I have made, which I make in all sincerity, because I believe that Parliament ought to have control in this matter, are not sufficient to meet the needs of the case.

Sir F. FLANNERY: I hope the Committee will not now be put to the trouble of a Division after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) appears to hare in his mind chiefly the idea that this Advisory Committee, to whose setting up I was also a party a year and a half ago, has not functioned, except to the extent of two meetings, because of some unwillingness on the part of the Minister of Transport to summon it. My hon. Friend read a portion of Clause 22, but I am not sure that he read the whole of it. At all events, it seems to me that Subsection (4) makes it perfectly clear that the onus and responsibility of this Committee functioning rests upon the Committee itself and not upon the Minister, as was suggested by my hon. Friend. The Sub-section to which I have referred reads as follows:
The Roads Committee may mike regulations as to their procedure and method of voting, and may at their discretion consider and report to the Minister upon any matters affecting the construction, improvement, or maintenance of roads or bridges or the regulation of traffic thereon.
The whole power and responsibility rests upon the Committee, and if they have not met and dealt with this matter, then upon them be the blame; not upon my hon. Friend, because we know he has been performing great public duties in India for six months; but now that he is back again in the ordinary course of his duty as a member of that Committee, I am sure the Committee will meet regularly. The question before us now is as to whether we shall accept an Amendment which would compel the Minister to refer these questions to the Advisory Committee. I venture to say that my right hon. Friend has demonstrated quite clearly that sufficient control already exists over this matter, and so
long as you get parliamentary control in a sufficient measure, then surely it is not necessary to interfere with the constitution and duties of this Advisory Committee, which, as my hon. Friend said in the course of his speech, was set up under a Section which he himself had most to do, with others of us, in framing. He is as responsible as anyone for the framing of that Section, and he therefore must take the responsibility of allowing it to continue without interference if it can be shown, as I think I have shown, that the responsibility rests on the Committee itself. As to the merits of the Section, there are some county councils and rural district councils which have antagonistic interests. I have myself when coming to this House from my home in the country to go round corners, not merely at right angles, but at angles of 25 degrees, and my life is endangered almost every morning as I come towards this House from my home in the country. Why is that? Why are these roads left in that condition? It is because the authorities cannot agree, and, therefore, we must have some Ministry which can deal with these matters, and override, if necessary, any diversity of interests between the local authorities. I hope that my hon. Friend will not consider that the Amendment need be pressed after the very clear exposition which the Minister has given, that he will find himself able to reestablish the activity of the Advisory Committee, and that its present powers will be quite sufficient to do everything which is practical and necessary for the protection of the road users and those who are otherwise concerned

Sir I. PHILIPPS: The question rather turns on the duties of the Roads Advisory Committee and whether they can meet without being called together by the Minister of Transport. I think the Hon. Member who spoke last has shown that they can meet as often as they like, and that is clear from the Act; but what is not clear is this, that unless they have business put in front of them by the Minister, there is nothing for them to meet about. They do not know how the money is to be divided, and they cannot initiate new schemes themselves.

Sir F. FLANNERY: But they may advise; they are empowered to advise.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: Yes, but they have not got a staff to start new schemes and
proposals, and unless proposals are put before them by the Minister, it is practically useless to hold a meeting. I think this is the most important and governing line in the whole Bill and that it is essential that this money should be expended in such a way as to give general satisfaction to those who subscribe it. It is necessary, too, that the local authorities who have control of the roads on which this money is to be spent should also be satisfied that they are getting a fair proportion of the money collected in their area and that it should not all be given to certain favoured districts while other large parts of the country are neglected.
That is why many of us feel that it is desirable that some form of Advisory Committee should be called together by the Minister of Transport to advise him as to the allocation of these funds. I know, of course, that the funds are mainly going to be allotted to first and second class roads, but the Minister in allocating the money should receive help. It would be a great help to us here to-day if the Minister could give us some idea upon what lines he is going to allocate first and second class roads. Some of us who live in far distant parts of the country are very anxious about this matter. Will the first-class roads only be in thickly populated districts, and wild districts in the far west of Wales or the far north of Scotland be ignored? —because when they took the traffic returns on these roads they had only one-twentieth of the traffic that went over the roads in more thickly populated areas. On what basis is he going to make a first-class and a second-class road? If this Amendment were accepted, these questions would not arise, and we should not have to ask them: but we are giving the Minister powers over, roughly, £10,000,000 a year for all time. I have not seen the paper he has published, but I have made inquiries, and I find no basis on which he is going to distribute this large sum.
The Minister told us in the House the other day, in reply to the Noble Lord sitting below the Gangway, that he was not going to have this Report until the end of February. Of course, if he has got anything further to tell us we shall all be de lighted to hear it. There should be a fair division for all the roads, so that not only the taxpaying community may be satisfied, but also the great local authorities, which are the highway authorities of the country.
I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be impossible for the Minister of Transport to be hampered with every little item. I think he talked about cutting off corners and making small improvements of a hundred pounds here and there. Nothing like that was in my mind in putting down this Amendment. But if he could get advice on the big main schemes before they were carried out, that is a different matter. As the thing stands now, he can do anything he likes. It is true the Minister of Transport tells us that he is going to submit to Parliament full details of expenditure, but then the whole money will have been spent.

Sir E. GEDDES: I promised to give a forecast.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: As to the localities in which the money is to be spent?

Sir E. GEDDES: No.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: That is the problem. It would be as if the Secretary of State for War took £100,000,000 for war, and did not tell us whether it was for Mesopotamia, Palestine, or anywhere else. This House, it is true, will go through the Estimates and pass the expenditure, but it will only be on the certificate of the Administration, and there will be no details. The right hon. Gentleman must have the decision, but if he could give us some assurance that when he was having a big scheme before him he would give us an undertaking that it was his intention to refer the matter to the Roads Advisory Committee, I should be content. Personally, I have experienced the very greatest help in road matters from the Minister of Transport, and I do not suppose that while he is at the Ministry, with all the excellent officials at the Roads Department, there will be any trouble whatsoever. In fact, I am sure if other local bodies have received the assistance in the same way as the county council on which I have the honour to be, they will have nothing to say against the Minister of Transport and the Roads Department. It is, therefore, quite clear that my criticisms are not against the Ministry of Transport as at present run, but only aimed at securing safeguards over a great public expenditure. I do think we are entitled to a little more information as to the way in which the Minister of Transport means to carry on this very impor-
tant matter of the division of public funds in different parts of the country.

Sir E. GEDDES: If I may say so, I share the anxiety of my hon. and gallant Friend. The expenditure of this sum is really hedged about by many conditions. In the first place, the money is to be raised after a very careful inquiry. There was no dispute as to the amount to be raised, or the way it was to be spent. There was a certain difference of opinion as to the spreading of taxation, but the amount was not in dispute. The sums were to be spent in this way: Fifty per cent, for first-class roads for maintenance —that is not simply tarring and macadamising the surface, but it means widening and strengthening bad corners; and 25 per cent, for second-class roads. Then, in this year, there is £500,000 for arterial roads. That is in accordance with the programme that was laid down, at any rate for London. The other items throughout the country must come out of that sum. Next year there is a million for arterial roads, and the remainder goes to maintenance, but not purely maintenance. In a normal year, out of the expenditure of £8,000,000, there is £1,250,000 for arterial roads. That is spread over England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland in the report of the Committee. It was the basis upon which the Finance Act was passed, and I consider we are committed to that on that basis.
How is the classification to be carried out? The bulk of the money is to go on road maintenance, including improvements I have described in road-making— 50 per cent, first class, 25 per cent, second class and nothing to the rest. The local authorities have been asked to send in their proposed classification. They have classified the roads. Of course, in most of the cases the surveyor will have discussed things, and we shall not find a first-class road in one area and a second-class road in the next area. They will be linked up so as to get the first-class road gauged right through, and the second-class roads gauged right through. The money involved will about permit of contributions on this basis: 12 per cent, on the whole first-class roads, 14 per cent, on the whole second-class roads, making 26 per cent, altogether; and 74 per cent, on the "also-ran" type of roads. There is not very much difference between the treatment. Scotland has more first-class roads than
we have. The big roads run up the valleys, and you do not get the large number of little cross-roads.
That is the classification which is really the basis of the grants. As a matter of fact schemes have been submitted to the Roads Advisory Committee, and were at the first meeting approved by that Committee. There is no intention of keeping the Advisory Committee out of it altogether. We are not working in that sense at all. As the matter progresses we shall get our annual reports, and the apprehensions which I might have shared had I not known how the thing was working of hon. Members will be found to have had little ground. Parliament has sanctioned this fund as a specific fund. It is for the improvement of the roads of this country. But you cannot say you will give £5,000,000 this year and £1,000,000 next year. That is a wasteful, extravagant, and perfectly useless method. Such a way will cost far more than a better scheme on a progressive basis. You have to look forward to the development by the local authorities of the various schemes, of the provision of their stone-crushing and other plant, and in all these ways there is to be co-operation between them and the Ministry.
Therefore there will be, it is hoped, this continual and gradual progress steadily going forward, and bringing the roads up to a higher level, with the possibility in Parliament of criticising what is being done. It would not be good to go suddenly into a great capital expenditure. Our annual report will show what we have done on the basis of classification, and so on. I look upon myself as a trustee for the fund, and I have always endeavoured to act in that way. I shall look at these things very carefully. I have offered to give the House a forecast and estimate at the time we submit the estimates for the road staff of the yield of taxation, the prospective expenditure, how much is going to each country, and as to what roads are put into the first class, the second class, and so on. I agree the House ought to have this. Those who find the money are entitled to special consideration, and we propose to give it. Here is a Department working with the local authorities, but which cannot spend money wholeheartedly on any scheme of its own. The local authorities have to pay their proportion towards the roads. There is another safeguard. In practice
our work will be in partnership with the local authorities. It has been suggested that before the Minister makes a grant he shall take the advice of the Committee or act in accordance with their advice—

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I distinctly said that though the right hon. Gentleman might listen to that advice he need not take it.

Sir E. GEDDES: There are nine or ten grants per day. If you are going to make the Advisory Committee responsible in this matter, it must be remembered that the Members are not easily got together? it is different from the days when the Road Board was small. Such procedure as proposed would be hampering the efficiency of the Department. As I say, I have offered to give the House a forecast, an estimate of what is going to be done, with Reports of what has been done, and I hope that will satisfy hon. Members.

Mr. ATKEY: As I understand, the Minister thinks the Advisory Committee has a certain volition of its own. It can meet as often as it likes, and take under review such subjects that may be brought before it. Would it not be to the interest of his Department to ensure a definite amount of control being placed in the hands of the Committee, as suggested by the Mover of the Amendment? Would the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, allow the Committee to meet as often as they felt disposed, to take into consideration such matters as they desire to be brought before them, and thus enable the Committee of its own volition to take sufficient interest in these matters, and so render him every possible assistance in their power?

Mr. R. McLAREN: Advisory Committees—at least I so felt as I listened to the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment—are Committees set up to advise somebody. I expect that this Advisory Committee is to be set up to advise in connection with matters of road transport. To suggest that the Minister shall require advice upon all little details is absurd, but on any question of allocation, and in respect to these very large schemes to be undertaken in various parts of the country, I do not see why advice should not be asked. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us to-day that before he sanctions any schemes he will come to Parliament. But
what is likely to be done after the thing has been decided by his Department? I must confess, having some knowledge of departmental work, that I have no faith whatever in the Departments. This may be an exception. On the question of allocation I think it will be very wise for the Minister to call together the Advisory Committee. In Scotland, for instance, in this matter of road transport, the amount of traffic on the roads coming under the authority during summer time, especially from May to September, forms a very large amount of the traffic. Money beyond the ordinary should be given to these roads, because the traffic is so enormous, and it costs a good deal more to keep these roads up. I have heard it repeatedly stated by local authorities that they have a grievance even against the Road Board in not giving them a sufficient sum of money to make these matters right. I hope, if the Minister of Transport cannot accept this Amendment, at least he will give the House some assurance that in the large schemes undertaken the matter will be submitted, first of all, to the Advisory Committee for their advice, and that they shall be asked to allocate sums allocated equivalent to the upkeep of the roads in the manner I have described.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not want to put the House to the trouble of a division, but I think that this discussion has been of great use, and I desire to acknowledge the way in which the Minister of Transport has met my wishes. Of course, I do not want all the details given before the Committee, although I do not think we have been made as good use of as we might have been. I realise now, after what has been said, that we have power to call ourselves together when ever we like, and take any matter into consideration. That statement has rather opened my eyes, and my right hon. Friend may find us in the future inclined to sit more frequently, and we may pass more Resolutions. I did not refer to what we have done, because I thought that until a decision had been arrived at our recommendations should be treated as confidential. My right hon. Friend has power to borrow for these purposes, but I hope that before he goes in for a large loan he will let the Advisory Committee know that he has such an idea in order that we may discuss
it and give our humble advice before he gets rid of this £8,000,000 a year.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: We know that the Government is bound to take up very great works for the unemployed, which I agree must be undertaken, and this will throw a very heavy and a very proper burden on the State. What I want to do is to make sure that these particular funds will not be taken for that purpose, because all such charges should come out of the general funds of the country. I hope my right hon. Friend will give us some assurance on that point because we are leaving the disposal of this £8,000.000 a year entirely in his hands. I think we are entitled at least to express our view that the whole of that money should be used for the roads and not for any general national purpose.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. NEAL: I beg to move in Subsection (3, a) to leave out the words "such amount in respect of the," and to insert instead thereof the words "an amount equal to any reasonable."
There are four Amendments standing in the name of the Minister of Transport which are intended to deal with the subject-matter of certain other Amendments on the Paper, and the first of them is the one which I have just moved. During the discussions on this Bill some doubt arose as to whether the county councils would be refunded the actual cost of their administrations in connection with carrying out their duties under this Act, and objection was taken to the words "as may be prescribed by Regulations made under this Act with the consent of the Treasury." The hon. Member for the Thirsk Division (Mr. Turton) called attention to a statement of the Minister of Transport in connection with the Finance Act in which he gave a positive assurance that the whole cost incurred by the county councils in the performance of their duties under this Act would be refunded to them. In reply I pointed out that although the pledge would be redeemed fully, yet it was obvious that it must be deemed to be reasonable, and that it would not mean that whatever sum a county council might spend would necessarily be refunded to them, if it happened to be of an altogether unreasonable character. Since then the matter has been the subject of discussion with the County Councils Association, and the
words of the various Amendments standing in the name of the Minister of Transport are intended to produce a complete arrangement, and they have the assent both of the Treasury and the County Councils Association. I would like to read the Clause as it will stand as the result of these various Amendments—
to every county council by whom the said duties are levied an amount equal to any reasonable "expenses properly incurred by that council in accordance with directions issued by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury.
I think those words meet the points which were raised.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I do not think this Amendment carries us much further. The county councils ought to be reimbursed their full costs. There is far too much being imposed upon local authorities involving expenditure on their part. The idea of deciding what is reasonable may lead to the possibility of friction between the county councils and the Ministry. I have an Amendment down on the Paper to insert the word "all" because the local authorities are entitled to receive the full amount. If the Ministry of Transport is of opinion that the local authorities are extravagant, there are means for redressing that, but where a county council is exercising its function properly, it should be reimbursed the full amount of their expenses. The Departmental Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles on the 31st March, 1920, recommended that the whole cost of collection should be paid out of these funds. I observe that a number of other hon. Members have Amendments to deal with this point. May I say that I have been asked by the city of Glasgow to move the Amendment which stands in my name. The Corporation of Glasgow are much concerned about this duty being thrust upon them with no assurance that they will be reimbursed the total expenses incurred by them in their discharge of the duty. I am bound to say that I do not think the words proposed meet the case.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that this Amendment will not give security to the local authorities. In the past the Treasury have been so parsimonious that in London they have only given £4,000 per year, although the
collection has cost as much as £16,000 a year. In future, the duty of collecting these licence duties will be more difficult and costly than in the past, because the class of vehicles liable has been greatly increased, and the London County Council will have to control all the commercial vehicles as well as those used for other purposes. Therefore, we ought to have some security that the Treasury are not going to be allowed in the future as in the past to make the local authorities their tax collectors and then shirk paying reasonable expenses. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman feels it necessary to put in the word "reasonable" in view of the words "properly incurred" already occurring. Surely, if the expenses have been properly incurred they are reasonable. The Amendment which some of us have down to leave out the words "such amount in respect of" and at the end of the Sub-section to omit the reference to the "Regulations prescribed by the Treasury," so that it would read that the local authorities should get back the expenses properly incurred, would give far better security for a fair repayment of the costs to which they had been put in collecting the taxes than the suggested Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

Sir F. BLAKE: I was very much surprised to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport say that the Amendment had the full consent of the County Councils' Association. Of course, he speaks with great knowledge, but that is not in the least in accord with the information that was conveyed to me as late as the evening before last, when I had a consultation with the Secretary of that Association and with the hon. Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins), who, unfortunately, is not here to-day. I understand that he was one of the deputation—I was not one myself —who attended from the Highways Committee to discuss the matter, and I was asked to come here to-day and urge the right hon. Gentleman to meet the local authorities in this matter. I think that the words suggested are likely to lead to the most undesirable friction between bodies which ought to act in complete harmony and accord. There is no necessity to put in any other words. I have an Amendment and other hon. Members have Amendments, but, if we can get
the repayment of the expenses properly incurred, I do not see the necessity for any other words.
I should like the Committee to know what the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to the repayment of these expenses which makes us rather insistent in this matter. In the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, on 6th July, he was asked by the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Buckinghamshire whether the collection was to be made by the local authority, and, if so, whether consideration would be given to the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman replied that the question was one of considerable importance. The collection throughout would be by the local authority, and every penny of the cost of collection would be refunded. That had been allowed for in the figures which had been given. The hon. Member asked how it would be repaid, and the right hon. Gentleman said that it would be repaid out of the proceeds of the taxes. We say that this Amendment does not properly carry out that definite undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman. A definite promise was given that every penny of the cost of collection would be refunded out of the proceeds of the taxes. It is most unfortunate that words should be introduced that are likely to give rise to dispute as to what is reasonable. The Committee must bear in mind that this is a purely national service. The county councils will be acting as agents, and they ought not to run the risk of having to meet out of the rates absolutely necessary expenses, especially when every penny collected has to be paid into the Treasury and there is no certainty that they will get a single penny of it. For these reasons, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to reconsider whether he could not put in some words which would give more effect to the very definite assurance and promise that he gave to the county councils in July last.

Mr. MILLS: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to reconsider the matter and to accept the suggestion to substitute the word "all. "As a member of a local authority. I know from the few meetings that I have been able to attend that there is an obvious reluctance to take up these duties unless tie local authorities are certain that the cost will be borne by the Treasury and that a form of words will be inserted here to make
that clear. If the word "all" were substituted, it would be so free from ambiguity that the county councils would be willing to get on with the job.

Mr. NEAL: I do not think that there is any real difference of opinion between us. It is only a question of finding appropriate words to do two things which will be desired by every member of the Committee. First, we wish to secure to the county councils to the full all the costs which they properly incur in carrying out the duties imposed upon them under this Statute, in which, in point of fact, they have a direct interest, because county roads will be materially assisted out of the funds. The next point on which I hope there is equal agreement is that we must have some sort of safeguard against extravagant administration. These are the points we desire to cover by the Clause as amended. A suggestion has been made since I last addressed the Committee that we should insert the word "all." I have no objection to that being done. I do not think it adds anything to or detracts anything from the Clause. If you say you want to pay people reasonable expenses properly incurred it means all expenses, and if it will satisfy the hon. Member we have no objection to accepting the suggestion. The other suggestion was that the word "reasonable" should be omitted. It seems to me that if expenses are properly incurred they must be reasonably incurred. I am, however, quite prepared to see whether we can put in any words which will exactly meet the desires of the hon. Member. I suggest the Clause should read
to every county council by whom the said duties are levied, all the expenses properly incurred by that Council in or in connection with the levying of the duties, and the registration of the vehicle in accordance with directions issued by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury.
It is the directions which must have the approval of the Treasury, and not the specific amount to be paid by way of expenses. I think the Section as amended might fully satisfy the Members of the Committee, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment originally proposed.

Sir F. BANBURY: Before that is done I would like to say a word—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E.Cornwall): Does the hon. Gentleman
withdraw all the Amendment he has moved?

Mr. NEAL: I think the Amendment should stand to leave out the words "such amount in respect of the," and I move that.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Then the Amendment is to leave out the words, "such amount in respect of the," and to insert the words, "an amount equal to any."

Mr. NEAL: No; I wish to leave out the words "such amount in respect of the," and to insert instead thereof the word "all."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw the Amendment already moved?

Mr. NEAL: Yes.

Sir F. BANBURY: I object to the Amendment being withdrawn. I am in favour of the original Amendment. I am sorry to disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend, who seemed to think that the withdrawal of the word "reasonable" would cover his point. I do not think it will. I want to see the word "reasonable" inserted, so that if a county council should choose to incur unreasonable expenses, it would be obliged to go to the ratepayers. I do not share the opinion that county council people can be trusted. I look upon them, as a whole, as most extravagant bodies. I was living in the hope, at any rate, that to-day I might have the pleasure of supporting the Minister of Transport and following him into the Lobby. Now he dashes all my hopes to the ground, and accepts an Amendment which I think will encourage extravagance and put on the taxpayers a burden they ought not to bear. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his position and to stick to the Amendment which he recently introduced. I know that the Labour party are in favour of the altered Amendment but, naturally, they are all for extravagance, because they hold the more money that can be spent the better it is. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have seen the red light which the Labour party has shown. I object to the withdrawal.

3.0 P.M.

Mr. MOLES: It is too bad of my right hon. Friend to deny to the right hon.
Baronet who has just spoken the only anticipatory pleasure I have ever heard him express in this House, and if there were no other reason, I think the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider his proposal at the request of the right hon. Baronet. I. rose, not so much for the purpose of getting elucidation on this point, as because, as my right hon. Friend knows, the position in Ireland, with which I am more immediately concerned, is somewhat different to what it is here. I will take the case of Belfast, with whose interests I am specially charged. The corporation there has revenues from registration fees, fees on drivers' licences, transfers and hackney carriage licences, and these represent a substantial sum, having during the last five years averaged £3,000 per year. Before I can consent to any transfer of this revenue from the left-hand trouser pocket to the right-hand trouser pocket, or from both pockets to the pocket of some other garment, I want to be perfectly satisfied as to what is going to happen to the corporation. I am not clear now, and I submit that the position should be made clear. The Belfast Corporation, and bodies similarly situated, incur at the moment certain expenses for the collection of these revenues, and I think there should be a clear and explicit assurance that they will continue to get the revenue in addition to all the expenses necessarily and properly incurred in connection with the collection of the motor licence duties. I want a distinct assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the position of these bodies will not be prejudiced. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the official return published by the Department in regard to collections in Ireland, he will find that six counties and boroughs collect between them £7,600, of which the Corporation of Belfast alone collects £4,750. If I take two or three counties adjoining, I find in precisely the same way the major portion of the duties collected come in effect from five counties and one borough. How does Belfast come out of the transaction? It gets 5 per cent.—£237—for collecting nearly £4,800 for the Road Board; and every appeal that has been made by the corporation to the Road Board for assistance in the maintenance of roads has been met by a stern refusal. That £4,750 odd, contributed by owners of motor cars in Belfast, is drafted out
into remote parts of the South and West of Ireland for the benefit of their roads at our expense. Philanthropy is one thing, but sheer robbery is another, and no milder term will describe proceedings of that sort. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that a plea from a corporation which treats him so well is listened to with more sympathy than it has so far received. I observe that a tax of 15s. per tramway car is to be imposed, and we are to have that cast upon us as well. An enormous amount of damage is done to the tramway tracks by heavy motor lorries, and the ratepayers have to pay the bill out of their own pockets. I do not think that is fair treatment.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: The hon. Member who has just sat down is apparently thinking of the next paragraph. The object of the Minister of Transport ought to be to protect the Road Fund from improper use, and I was prepared to support the Amendment which has been moved by the Parliamentary Secretary. The local authorities will say, "Here is a splendid fund. We can pay our clerks and our printers and everything we like, and charge it all to the Road Fund. We can have a large staff of public officials, and we do not have to collect the rates. It is an ideal system. Let us send down all the hon. Members we can to force this upon the House, so that in future we need not collect the rates, but can charge it all to the public Exchequer." I am a member of local bodies myself, and try to be as economical as possible, but it is well known that expenditure of which the Exchequer pays half, or a third, or three-fourths, as the case may be, is easier to get through a council than expenditure the whole of which has to fall on the rates. Under a proposal like this, the Clerk of the County Council will say, "How many clerks do you want to run this? Two or three? Well, we may as well have four. The motor car users pay it. Then, So-and-So is a very good fellow; let us put his salary up a bit. We do not pay it." In fact, there will be no limit to the expenditure. I do not think it is even strong enough as it is, and I was going to ask the Minister of Transport to lay down a limit. I see that he estimates that the cost of this collection of tax will be £300,000; but, unless we are very particular about this Sub-section, it will not be £300,000, but £600,000. I hope, there-
fore, that sufficiently strong words will be put in to afford some check. It is a great misfortune if there is discord between county councils and any Government Department, and there must be someone to decide. Unless some words are put in to provide that, say, the Treasury must decide in case of a dispute, there will be constant discord between the local body and the Government Department, which is very unsatisfactory for the general concerns of the State. This Clause needs strengthening, so that only fair and reasonable sums may be expended, and in case of any dispute the Treasury should be the final arbiter.

Mr. SPENCER: Most of us on this side wish to support the withdrawal of this Amendment. So far as the intention is to limit expenditure in regard to this particular duty, we agree, but the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) was all that was desirable. I am not an authority on the exact meaning of words, but I should like to know if anyone can tell me the difference between expenses properly incurred and reasonable expenses. I think the authorities in this House would have some difficulty in defining the exact difference between those terms, and, so far as the words "properly incurred" are concerned, they will meet all that the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has in mind. I do not think, so far as this Amendment is concerned, that he can accuse us of being extravagant. Who is going to carry out these duties? It will be the county councils, and I think I am accurate in stating that the county councils of this country are largely made up of members belonging to the party to which the right hon. Baronet belongs. If his statement is true that this is leading to extravagance, he is admitting that the party with which he is associated politically are the most extravagant people in the country, and that he is not prepared to trust his own party. I think that that is a logical inference.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not admit that at all. I admit that some people who used to be Conservatives still nominally call themselves Conservatives, but they are really something quite different. They are extravagant, but the old reactionary Tory is not.

Mr. SPENCER: I have not a very long experience myself, but I can say that
most of us recognise that the right hon. baronet is at least consistent in his principles. However much we may differ from him with regard to his principles, we are always prepared to admit that he is very frank and fair and courteous in Debate. I think that the object and intention of the Ministry will be met by inserting the word "all"—"all expenses which are properly incurred." I agree that, as far as possible we ought to prevent any unnecessary friction between the Treasury and the local authorities, but that will be met best by not pressing the Amendment which has been moved by the Parliamentary Secretary, and by accepting the Amendment which is down in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds. If you begin to put in reasons why expenses are properly incurred, you have a multiplicity of words, and you have to show, first, that they are reasonable expenses, and, secondly, that they have been properly incurred. The hon. and gallant Member for Southampton (Sir I. Philipps) said that there could be a multiplicity of clerks, and that printing expenses and a great many other things could be charged to this account, and passed as properly incurred expenses. But does anyone for a moment believe that the Government auditor would pass accounts of that character as being proper expenditure? I do not believe for a moment that the auditors who examine public accounts would be guilty of so gross a negligence. I do not think anything of the kind could happen if the Amendment was withdrawn. If the Government cast upon the local authorities certain duties which it is the duty of the State to perform, in their stead the State ought to be prepared to pay to the extent of the expenses incurred in carrying out those duties. It is just possible that the words which were proposed to be inserted would lead to an amount of friction as to reasonable, expenses, and it might lead to an amount of dissatisfaction, and it might lead to the county councils saying, "We do not want this duty any further because the Government is not prepared to pay for the duties we are willing to perform." Therefore I hope the Minister in charge, now that he has stated he is willing to withdraw his own Amendment and accept one which states that all the expenses properly incurred shall be paid, will stick to the Resolution he has arrived at.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: We all really are after the same thing. It is a question of words, and under these circumstances the fewer words we have the better. My view is that it would be better to leave out both the word "unreasonable" and the word "all," so that the county council should be entitled to recover expenses properly incurred. If you leave out the word "all" you create an onus of proof on the Treasury to show that any particular expense has been improperly incurred. If the words are "expenses properly incurred" alone it will be left to the local auditor.

Sir F. FLANNERY: That means all expenses.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, it really means all expenses. "Expenses properly incurred" means in fact all expenses, but it does not put that additional little emphasis which you put if you put in the word "all." We have to be pretty careful about these words, because in a case like this where you are making the local authorities your agents you have to see that that agency is carried out economically. We have to protect the taxpayer in that respect. We have to ensure that local authorities in carrying out these duties we put upon them get their expenses, but not more than their proper expenses, and therefore it would be a great mistake to put in the word "all," and it is very undesirable to have redundant words like "reasonable as well as proper." Therefore I urge the Government to reduce the Clause to the smallest number of words possible, not to accept the word "all" and leave out the word "reasonable."

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I may make a suggestion which might meet what I think is the purpose of the Committee. Leave to withdraw the present Amendment is refused, so I am bound to put the Question. Therefore I hope the Committee will decide to leave out the words "such amount in respect of the" and will also negative the proposed insertion of the word "reasonable." Then we should be open for another insertion.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Will not that prejudice the question of "all"? If you leave out "reasonable" you cannot accept the word "all."

The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me to complete my suggestion. I was going to suggest that, having negatived the proposed insertion, these words might meet the case:
"an amount equal to the expenses." It would then read—
to every county council by whom the said duties are levied an amount equal to the expenses properly incurred by the council.

Mr. NEAL: On behalf of the Government I should like to express our indebtedness to you for putting this matter in substantive form. I think it will meet everyone's view. I should be content to vote against the Amendment, as leave to withdraw has beer, refused, and later to move the words which the Chairman has intimated might be appropriate.

Question, "That the words 'such amount in respect of the' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'an amount equal to any reasonable' be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Mr. NEAL: I beg to move, in Subsection (3, a), after the word "levied" ["by whom the said duties are levied"], to insert the words "an amount equal to the".

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I am quite agreeable, after what has been said, to cancel my Amendment, and to accept that of the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (3, a), after the word "council" ["properly incurred by that council"], insert the words "in accordance with directions issued by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury."

After the word "duties" ["with the levying of the duties"] insert the words "and the registration of vehicles."

Leave out the words "as may be prescribed by regulations made under this Act, with the consent of the Treasury." — [Mr. Neal].

Mr. GRANT: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3, a), to insert the words:
and such Regulations shall provide for advances to be made to the said county councils at the commencement of each year and from time to time as may be necessary during the year on account of such expenses.
For some years past county councils have been financed in carrying out State-aided schemes. This has resulted in
long delays and great inconvenience to the councils. Representations have been made and it has been more or less the practice that payments on account have been made. The object of the Amendment is to give statutory permission for such practice as a matter of convenience to the county council. There can be no real objection to the Amendment which will only carry out what is more or less the practice at present.

Mr. NEAL: My hon. Friend is quite correct in saying it has been the practice in the past to make these advances. It is intended to continue that practice, but we cannot quite accept the form of words which he suggests. I will accept the Amendment with the substitution of the word "may" for the word "shall" and leaving out the words "at the commencement of each year." It is not necessary that the advance shall be made at the commencement of the year. I think the purpose he has in view will be met if the Amendment is moved in the form I suggest.

Mr. GRANT: I accept that.
Amendments made to proposed Amendment: Leave out the word "shall" and insert instead thereof the word "may." Leave out the words "at the commencement of each year."—[Mr. Neal.]

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Captain GANZONI: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3, b), after the word "the" ["represent the amount"], to insert the word "nett."
I have given notice of a subsequent Amendment so that if both were adopted the paragraph would read—
to every local or police authority such sum as the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine to represent the nett amount which, after allowing for the costs of administration and collection, would, if this Act had not been passed, have been received by the authority on account of fees or charges for the licensing of mechanically-propelled hackney carriages.
The object is to have the local or police authority in no better position than they are in now solely on account of the old licences having been swept away and new licences credited to the Road Fund. I and those who think with me think if the Clause is left as drawn it will put the local and police authorities undeservedly in rather a better position. If the right hon. Gentleman, with his
usual thoroughness and courtesy, shows me that that is not so I will be satisfied. If, owing to this Clause, the local authorities receive larger amounts and are let off the cost of administration, which they should not be let off, it will permit extravagance and will fail to protect the Road Fund. The last Amendment moved by the Minister was devised to protect the Road Fund.

Sir E. GEDDES: The object of the Amendment is one with which I entirely agree. In theory it would be perfectly right to say that the police and local authorities should obtain nett cost. The only reason this has been put in this way is to save money. In certain areas, I am told the Metropolitan area is one, the police are, in fact, out of pocket. I understand from those who have inquired into this matter that exactly the same work will be done. There will be no extra charge, and it is a charge which will be included in the general licence duties.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the police are collecting duties at a loss, and if that amounts, say, to £11,000, there is no reason why they should be given £10,000 out of the Road Fund. It is quite obvious that it would be wrong to pay more than the nett cost.

Sir E. GEDDES: This deals with hackney carriages and is not what was covered by the previous Clause. The work will have to be covered just the same. What had to be considered was whether there should be paid the ascertained out-of-pocket expenses or what they get to-day. That would involve an elaborate ascertainment all over the country as to what were out-of-pocket expenses, and as the thing is so very small, it is considered better to let them have what they are getting to-day.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the amount is?

Sir E. GEDDES: I will let the hon. Baronet know.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will further consider the matter between now and Report?

Sir E. GEDDES: I shall be very pleased to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman.

Captain GANZONI: In these circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move in Sub-section (3, c), after the word "expenses" ["part of the expenses"], to insert the words "not exceeding ten thousand pounds."
I move in order to find out the amount by which the Road Fund is going to be mulcted or reduced by the expenses. There is a tendency of all those Departments to increase the staffs. There must be an ample and sufficient staff to carry out the work but this is our only chance to protect the interests of the Road Fund and to see that too great a proportion of the expenses of the Ministry is not allocated to the Road Fund. I think all these are national matters and should be allocated to the Ministry generally, but as it is decided that the Road Fund must pay something I have inserted a definite figure and should like to know from the Right Hon. Gentleman what is likely to be the estimated charge under this head.

Sir E. GEDDES: The total expenses of the Road Department will come annually before Parliament, and the House will have that opportunity to criticise. I have been in negotiations with the Treasury as to how we should interpret this Clause. I have been able to make an arrangement with the Treasury that it is to be limited strictly to expenditure incurred for the work for which the old road fund was originally intended. None of the other duties, such as lighting on vehicles, or any question which may arise in future which is not strictly applicable to the proper use of the fund which has succeeded that of the old road development, is to be charged upon this fund. The expenditure to-day, representing the administration of the old road development fund in its new form, is £48,790. If possible, I would like to show each item separately on the estimate so that full protection will be given.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am beginning to feel that my efforts to improve the Bill are quite unnecessary. My right hon. Friend has been so kind in showing such a desire to protect the road fund that I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out paragraph. (d).
I move this Amendment in order to get some explanation as to what sum it is proposed to set apart for the purpose specified.

Sir E. GEDDES: The principle of paragraph (d) was assented to in the Ministry of Transport Act. We have here only a new profession of it. This is necessary because of the huge development in mechanical road traction during the last fifteen or twenty years, more particularly since the War. The reason which actuated the House and the Government in providing that power should be given to contribute to the staff of a local authority for road work was simply this. Roads are no longer a purely local interest. They are a national interest. The expenditure to-day is roughly £40,000,000 on roads, and it is necessary that we should try to get highly skilled engineers on the staffs, because that would be the greatest economy. I am assured that an incompetent surveyor can waste more money on roads than an incompetent man in almost any other branch. Our object, therefore, is to get a good standard of men appointed throughout the country. The local authorities have got a great interest in appointing their men, but no one can contest that if you have a man such as Sir Henry Maybury at the head of your Roads Department, who is looking at roads on the whole, who is seeking to get a classification and comparing the cost of maintaining and making a mile of second or third class road, you ought to have some intimate touch with the surveyors and the officials who are carrying out that work, and know what their qualifications are.
It is impossible to say what this will amount to. The contributions which those for whom the hon. and gallant Member speaks in reference to the roads of the district depend on the classification. If every local authority in the country were to ask for a half, the cost, I am told, would be about £350,000 a year. It is in conceivable that they would all ask. I hope that they will, because I think that it will give a better standard of road engineering throughout the country, and I believe that you will save far more than any possible cost by getting really good
engineers on the work. You cannot spend money better on roads than in helping local authorities to have really first-class engineers, who make it a profession. The suggestion of contributing a half, subject to approval, goes much further than the money or the approval. It makes the closest possible touch between the Minis try as trustees for the road fund and the local authorities, and ensures that road engineering is going to be a co-ordinated profession in the future, and not some thing which anybody can take up. I feel strongly about this point. The maximum possible will be £350,000, but that is quite fallacious, and the amount is more likely to be about £100,000 a year.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot argue the whole thing now, but this is one of the Clauses which I fought most strenuously last year. It removes the control of the servants of the local authority from the local authority to the right hon. Gentleman

Sir E. GEDDES: No.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It does very largely. The appointment of officers of the local authority is subject to the approval of the right hon. Gentleman and half the salary is paid. That is exactly what local doctors and sanitary officers have been trying to get for a long time so that they may get out of local control. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the figure of £100,000 as the probable amount of expenditure. I do not know whether he would be prepared to limit the amount to that figure. £350,000 is an enormous hole in the Road Fund. The engineers will be there all the same and will be doing their work all the same, but you are taking possibly £350,000 out of £8,000,000 contribution to local rates that otherwise would not be paid. I think the right hon. Gentleman might consider, between now and Report, whether he would accede to some limiting amount.

Mr. SPENCER: I understood the Minister to say that this will not interfere in the least with the supreme authority of the local authorities over their engineers. Is that so or not?

Sir E. GEDDES: Yes, it is so.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: This new system will have a very great effect on local government. In future the county surveyor or the urban or rural district sur-
veyor will look to the Ministry for half his salary.

Sir E. GEDDES: The authority will be the Fund. The surveyor does not look for his salary to the Ministry. He is entirely under the local authority.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: The local authority will look to the Minister of Transport for half the salary of its surveyor. This also carries with it the natural corollary that the Minister would settle whether the man to be appointed is fit for the appointment which the county council or district council has made. It is interfering in a great way with the duties of the county councils, but at the same time it is raising the standard of the county surveyor, and I think the whole country will welcome that. We all know how in the old days the County of Kent had an overwhelming superiority over any other part of England in regard to its roads. I do not think I ever met the county surveyor, but he was known as a very superior workman in his particular trade. I believe he is the present head of the Road Department of the Ministry. If ever a man deserved promotion to the top of his profession it was certainly the man who made the roads of Kent. While I welcome this proposal, I hope it will not mean too much interference from the Minister of Transport.

Mr. SPENCER: I asked the Minister of Transport a question. I cannot fit his answer into the Bill.

Sir E. GEDDES: I think that the hon. Gentleman, and other speakers, have failed to notice that the whole thing is permissive. No local authority is to ask for any contribution that it does not want, and its supreme authority is in no way interfered with. I have no authority over it unless it willingly comes to me and says, "We wish to obtain this grant, and if we get the grant we are prepared to see that the man who is to be paid as to half his salary by you through us, shall be mutually agreed to." That is all. It is open to them to accept the grant or not. The only reason we have for this proposal is that we feel much money could foe saved by doing what is proposed and intended, namely, the raising of the standard of the local surveyor. There is no obligation upon any local authority, but if it wishes it can come into the
arrangement. Although we are not yet making these payments, we are already receiving, in anticipation, applications from all over the country from people who are saying, "Here is a man and here is another man. Whom would you recommend?" They are recognising that a road engineer's job is a specialist's job, and that money can be saved if a good man is appointed.

Major HAYWARD: The observations of the Minister have certainly removed any misapprehension that was in my mind. He states that the whole provision is permissive. Of course, if local authorities are to come in and take advantage of the provision, they must be subject to some sort of control by the Minister. It seems in all respects an admirable proposal that the Minister, recognising the vast importance of raising the standard of the surveyor, is adopting this means of doing so.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: This is a matter of very great importance, and I do not think it has been made quite clear to the Committee or to the country. We have heard from the Minister of Transport that the Ministry proposes to pay one half of the salary of the various road surveyors throughout the country. The Government reserve the right under the principle Act to say that wherever a contribution is paid in respect of the salary of any of these surveyors they have the right to approve or disapprove of the appointment of such surveyor. In effect that amounts to this, that no local authority will be free to appoint its own surveyors; it will be absolutely in the hands of the Ministry. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be a matter of mutual agreement. We all know what mutual agreement means as between a Minister of State and a county council. It means that the Minister of State is supreme and the Minister of Transport in this matter would be supreme.

Amendment negatived.

Further Amendment made: In Subsection (3), after the word "a" ["to a police"], insert the words "local or."— [Mr. Johnstone].

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 (Amendment of 9 Edw. 7, c 47) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions as to licences).

(1) Every person applying for a licence under Section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by this Act, or under Section four of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, shall make such a declaration and furnish such particulars with respect to the vehicle or carriage for which the licence is to be taken out or otherwise as may be prescribed.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act as to general licences, every licence issued under Section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by this Act, shall be issued in respect of the vehicle specified in the application for the licence, and shall not entitle the person to whom it is issued to use any other vehicle, and a county council shall not be required to issue any licence for which application is made unless they are satisfied that the licence applied for is the appropriate licence for the vehicle specified in the application, and, in the case of an application for a licence for a vehicle purporting to be the first application for a licence in respect of the vehicle, that a licence has not previously been issued in respect of that vehicle.

(3) Where any vehicle in respect of which any such licence as aforesaid has been issued is altered after the licence has been issued in such manner as to cause the vehicle to become a vehicle in respect of which a licence at a higher rate of duty or a licence of a different class is required, the licence shall become void but the holder of the licence shall, on surrendering the same and furnishing the prescribed particulars, be entitled to receive a new licence in respect of the vehicle on payment of such amount, if any, as represents the difference between the amount payable on the new licence and the amount paid on the surrendered licence.

(4) Notwithstanding anything in the provisions of the Acts relating to Excise licences, and without prejudice to those provisions, any such licence as aforesaid may be transferred in the prescribed manner.

(5) Subject as may be prescribed every such licence as aforesaid shall, in the prescribed manner, be fixed to and exhibited on the vehicle in respect of which it is issued.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir F. BANBURY: This Clause deals with the provisions as to licences. I have received a letter from a gentleman who suggests that in the case of vehicles let out on the hire-purchase system, the name of the owner and the name of the user might with advantage be attached to the car. I do not see in Clause 5 anything relating to the arrangement which my correspondent suggests. I presume that under Clause 12 it would be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make Regulations. I should like to knew whether
he has considered the suggestion that the name of the owner and the name of the user should both be affixed to vehicles let on hire. If he has considered the suggestion, does he consider it a good one or a bad one?

Sir E. GEDDES: The whole question of the fixing of the names to the car was considered, and everyone who made representations objected very much to having their name on their cars. They did not wish to be ear-marked everywhere they went, and they did not want everyone to know who they were. I do not think any difficulty will occur, because the licence attaches to the car, and the person who owns the car takes out the licence. If the car is sold, the licence goes with it. The licence is part of the car for a year, and is carried in a small aluminium frame, which costs 3s. 6d.

Commander Viscount CURZON: Five shillings!

Sir E. GEDDES: Therefore, it does not matter who is using the car. The car has to have the licence attached.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged.

4.0 P.M.

Viscount CURZON: I should like some information on the question of licences. The whole of the provision regarding licences is looked upon by most motorists as being to a certain extent a burden upon them, though it may be a necessary burden. What is the actual position where the licence has to be carried? I believe it has to be carried somewhere on the near side of the vehicle, showing to the front. Is it really essential that the licence should be visible in the position indicated? The whole object of the licence is that the policeman or the Inland Revenue officer can see at a glance whether the car has its licence. Is it not possible for anybody with fraudulent intent to substitute a card, not necessarily of the same design, but of the same colour, in the licence frame, and to ride about gaily so long as he is not stopped? Is it not possible under those circumstances for fraud to arise? The only way to ensure against that is to stop the vehicle, and if it is to be stopped, is it necessary to carry the licence on the wind screen as proposed? Would the right hon. Gentleman agree to allow the
licence to be carried on the inside of the door, on the near side of the driver's seat. The licence has to be carried in a small metal frame. It is possible that the frame may get covered with grease or dust, and the licence may consequently become obscured. What will be the fate of the motorist whose licence is obscured or held to be partially obscured by a policeman? Some of us know how energetic the police can be. There have been cases where motorists have been brought up because the letters on the number plate have been one-sixteenth of an inch too big or too small. If a certain amount of dust or mud gets on the licence, what will be the position of the owner of the vehicle? Supposing the licence frame is not water-tight. It is specified that it is to have a rubber ring inside, with the idea of making it water-tight. Headlamps are supposed to be watertight, but water gets inside through condensation, and it may well be that water may get inside the licence frame and obscure the licence or damage it. Supposing you take out a licence and within a short time water gets inside the frame, and the licence is damaged. Would it be necessary to replace the licence, and if so, how much would it cost? The only way in which you can make sure that the licence really belongs to the car is by comparing the number of the licence and the number of the car, and in order to do so you will have to stop the car. That brings me back to my original contention about the carrying of the licence. We are now well on in December and we have to get the licences on the cars by the 1st January. That is a short time in which to comply with the Regulations. Recently there was a great motor exhibition in London, and it was quite impossible for the people in the trade to find out exactly what was proposed in the direction of licences, except by the courtesy of the Minister and of the Ministry in allowing them to see them. These proposals have been before the Advisory Committee, but what that Committee did or agreed to was entirely unknown to the majority of the trade. Will the Minister allow a short, reasonable period of grace to anybody who is not able to get his frame on his car by the 1st January providing that he has paid his licence? I suggest a period of a week might be allowed

Sir I. PHILIPPS: In regard to the registration marks, I thought that subject came better under Clause 12.

Sir E. GEDDES: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we dealt with the whole thing on Clause 12.

Viscount CURZON: I was talking about the Excise licence.

The CHAIRMAN: If it be convenient to the Committee, I shall allow both points to be raised together on Clause 12.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Registration and identification marks.)

"(1) On the first issue by a county council of a licence under Section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by this Act, for a vehicle it shall be the duty of the council to register the vehicle in the prescribed manner without any further application in that behalf by the person taking out the licence, and subject to the provisions of this section, every such council shall assign a separate number to every vehicle registered with them, and the mark indicating the registered number of the vehicle and the council with which the vehicle is registered shall be fixed on the vehicle or on any other vehicle drawn by that vehicle or on both in the prescribed manner:

Provided that any number which has been assigned to a motor car under Section two of the Motor Car Act, 1903, and which is the registered number of that car on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, shall be treated as having been assigned to the car under the provisions of this section, and no new number shall be assigned to such a car.

(2) If the mark to be fixed in accordance with this Act is not so fixed, or if, being so fixed, it is in any way obscured or rendered or allowed to become not easily distinguishable, the person driving the vehicle shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds:

Provided that a person charged under this section with obscuring a mark, or rendering or allowing it to become not easily distinguishable, shall not be liable to be convicted on the charge if he proves that he has taken all steps reasonably practicable to prevent the mark being obscured or rendered not easily distinguishable."

Mr. A. SHAW: I should like to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words
and the mark indicating the registered number of the vehicle and the council with which the vehicle is registered shall be fixed on the vehicle or on any other vehicle drawn by that vehicle or on both in the prescribed manner.
I understand this is the provision under which an Order has already been drawn up requiring a water-tight metal-bound clamp to be fitted on every motor vehicle, and I wish to omit this provision altogether. I have been amazed to find the number of letters coming to me from my own constituency from people who only now have awakened to the amount of gratuitous departmental interference with the elementary rights of the subject which is being inflicted on them in connection with motoring.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. Member was referring to the watertight case, but the words he proposes to leave out appear to me to refer only to the registration number on the back of the car. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if that is so.

Sir E. GEDDES: Yes, it is.

Mr. SHAW: Am I to understand that under this Clause the provisions regarding the fixing on the vehicle of this new form of licence do not arise?

Sir E. GEDDES: This is the registration number.

Mr. SHAW: I am afraid we have endured the registration numbers too long to object to them at this time of day, but I am mainly objecting to the other provision.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: May I point out that the marginal note to the Clause is, "Registration and identification marks."

Sir E. GEDDES: Those are the old plates.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does not this come in on Clause 12?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes.

Mr. A. SHAW: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: I have not put it to the Committee, so there is no need for the hon. Member to withdraw it.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "way" ["in any way"], to insert the word "knowingly."
This is to prevent a person being liable to a penalty of £50 by the mere fact that this little label that we have to
go about the world with, and which has been invented by the Minister of Transport—

Mr. NEAL: That is the very subject my hon. Friend (Mr. A. Shaw) was referring to a moment ago. This Clause deals with the ordinary number plate.

Sir E. GEDDES: The licence card is new. The identification plate is the registration number which we all carry on our cars to-day, and which we shall not change. The new thing is the little card on the back.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: I am raising the point of the old number plate. I have not the present regulations with me, but here it is laid down that if these plates are "obscured, or rendered, or allowed to become not easily distinguishable," you will be liable to a penalty of £50. That simply means that when you are driving along a muddy road, and you have got your number plate slightly dulled, you are liable to £50. It is absurd; no Court in the country would fine a man £50 for such a thing, and it ought not to be put in here unless the word "knowingly" is added. In London yesterday none of these numbers would have been distinguishable at all, but under this Clause every car on a foggy day in London would be liable to a fine of £50 for going out of its garage.

Mr. NEAL: This is one of several Amendments the object of which is to insert knowledge as the essence of a criminal offence. That has been considered most carefully by the advisers of the Government from the point of view of parliamentary draftsmanship, and there is a strong objection to the insertion of the word "knowingly" or "intentionally" in some Statutes when it is not put in others. It results in a great confusion in the Statute Book. The matter was most carefully considered, and the general principle of law is that a criminal offence cannot be committed unknowingly. I cannot therefore accept the Amendment. As a matter of fact, these words are introduced exactly from the Motor Car Act, 1903. They do not introduce any new offences at all, and it is most important that these identification numbers should be legible and easily distinguishable. The object of that identification number is well known. A motor car proceeding along the road is involved in some accident, and unless the mark is readily observable that car may get clear
and never be found, and therefore to whittle down the provisions as to the necessity for identification marks being clear would, I think, be a retrograde step. When you come to practical matters, of course any Court which tried a case of this description, and came to the conclusion that a defendant had committed an offence without criminal intent, the Court need not record a conviction. That which my hon. Friend has in mind is covered by the general law because under one of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, when a Court has come to a conclusion that a person has not committed an offence intentionally, they are not to record a conviction.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not withdraw his Amendment, which, I think, absolutely necessary after what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. The Parliamentary Secretary has just made what is to many of us a very astonishing statement, that you cannot commit a crime unknowingly. That may be the law, but I think it is within the knowledge of all of us who have any experience of bicycles or motors that that is not the practice of the Courts, and that these technical offences are used as a revenue-producing machine. People are sent out to catch those whose tail lamps have blown out on a windy or wet night, or for some other small and involuntary offences, and they have mulcted them in very considerable fines. I think it is absolutely necessary that we should have some word to secure the object mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Southampton. I do not think the word "knowingly" would get out of the difficulty. You would still be prevented from using your motor car in the conditions he mentioned. I think you want something more comprehensive and something to provide that P man shall not be fined unless the technical offence is his own fault. It is rather a matter for legal drafting than for a lay man to suggest, but we ought to have some direction, or else this Bill will be used for the purpose of blackmail.

Viscount CURZON: I do hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not withdraw his Amendment. I plead guilty to having a certain experience of what sort of chance a. motorist, who errs absolutely unwittingly, has when be appears before a Court of so-called justice. The word
of anybody is taken against him. A policeman may say anything he likes. It does not matter what the motorist says; a conviction is almost invariably recorded against him. I hope, therefore, if the right hon. Gentlemen cannot accept the word "knowingly," some other word or words will be found, so that where a motorist has been had up for an offence of which he is quite unconscious, a certain latitude, at any rate, may be given to the law to cover that point. I was present at a police court not very long ago where a discharged soldier was had up for riding a motor-bicycle, and allowing some portion of his coat to blow across the number-plate. It was quite an unconscious offence on his part. He wrote to the court that he was a married man, had a family of seven children, had been out of work for four months, that this was the only time he had had his motor-bicycle out in that time, and he could not at the moment afford any petrol to run it any more. He asked if he could be given time to pay. They fined him 40s. I nearly asked a question in the House, but did not do so, because I thought I was not entitled to ask it. That is the sort of penalty inflicted for such an offence. I admit that you cannot mete out too severe a sentence on a man who obscures his motor-plate by putting grease or dust on it, but in a small petty case, such as I have described, cannot we possibly make some provision in this Clause, so that a man may not have a penalty inflicted on him unless he commits an offence knowingly?

Mr. HOHLER: I hope the hon. and gallant Member will persist in this Amendment. I am bound to say I do not agree with the statement of law made by the Parliamentary Secretary. My view is that the word "knowingly" has a very important value, and it has a well-recognised definition. Under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act you have an offence for selling some article not of a certain quality, and there is another offence in the same Statute, to my recollection, preceded by the word "knowingly," and the Courts have ever drawn a distinction between the two. My recollection of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, again, varies from that of the Parliamentary Secretary, and that if the offence charged is mens rea, and the magistrates do not think, in their discretion, that they need
record a conviction, they may dismiss the case on payment of costs. I do not think it can be suggested that, because you are in a dark fog and your mark is obscured, you have committed an offence. I think the word "knowingly" covers the matter. I do not think I would go all the way with the Noble Lord opposite, but I think it is within the experience of some that benches of magistrates are not always so well disposed towards motorists as towards some others.

Sir F. BANBURY: Might I suggest that we put in the word "wilfully" instead of "knowingly"? That would go a little further. I am not a motorist, and have never been had up in a police court, but I am a magistrate, and I do think some word is necessary.

Sir E. GEDDES: It is very difficult for a layman, when lawyers disagree, to know exactly what to say. If the Committee would allow me, I would like to get the Clause now, and I will see what I can do between now and Report or in another place. Undoubtedly, rightly or wrongly, motorists have a feeling—as some of us know—there may not have been a reason for it—on the subject that the revenue from fines on motorists is an important consideration to the local authority. If that is in the minds of hon. Members, let me say that this Bill provides for all these fines going into the Road Fund; that is a very important safeguard. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If the Committee will allow me I will look at the matter with the Parliamentary draughtsman and see if I cannot in some such way and by words suggested by the right hon. Baronet, "wilfully or negligently" meet the case. But I would point out that this very provision has been in force for 17 years, and I do not think there has been any great cause for complaint—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]— of persons being penalised knowingly. However, I will look into the matter.

Major HAYWARD: I should like to be quite sure what it is that is proposed by the right hon. Gentleman between now and the further consideration of the Bill. As the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite pointed out, there seems to be a difference from the view of the Parliamentary Secretary who said an offence could be committed under this Clause whether the subject did or did not know the identi-
fication mark had been obscured. Certainly there is all the difference in the world as to whether you have an element of knowledge between an act committed by a person or an act which is to be done or not by the person, and, as in this case, a fact to be established. Surely in this-case if the board is obscured and is not easily distinguishable an offence will be committed whether the owner of the car knew it was so obscured or did not know. I understand, and that is what I want to make clear, that the Minister is going to have words considered which will provide that no offence shall be committed unless the subject has knowledge that the registration number is obscured, and not easily distinguishable.

Major HAMILTON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to insert words at this stage to meet the point put forward? Whether he inserts "knowingly" which I think is preferable, or "wilfully" which will meet the case I have in mind does not much matter; but if we leave it to the right hon. Gentleman's very courteous promise of consideration to put in words, this Bill may come on on Report stage at four o'clock in the morning, and those of us who are interested may be having a snooze in the library, and the Sub-section might get through without it being noticed. I do think my right hon. Friend will agree that this is really an important point. He says that he does not think that many of these cases have appeared in the Courts. May I tell hon. Members that I have been quite unconscious of the fact that my tail-light was out and have been shaken out of my car in the suburbs of Manchester and run in, and although I could show that my light was actually warm I was brought up before a very wise, magistrate who acted on the advice of my hon. and learned Friend below me. Otherwise I might have had my licence endorsed. It was actually said in Court by the policeman that the tail-light was warm when he put his hand on it. So that these sort of charges are made, and you get very little consideration in a court of summary jurisdiction. I do hope, therefore, my right hon. Friend will not leave this point to the Report stage, but put in one or other of the words suggested, and if, on further consideration with his advisers, he finds that the word or words will not do then it can be altered on the Report stage or in another place.

Sir E. GEDDES: I hope the Committee will not press me, because one has really to take the advice of the parliamentary draftsmen before coming to a conclusion in this matter. It is well known that the Committee or the House always gives great consideration to the experts in matters of this sort. But I will do my best and try to meet the point, if it is necessary to meet it, between now and the Report stage. At the same time I am really forced to the conclusion that the concluding paragraph of the Clause provides very much for what we are discussing. It says:
Provided that a person charged under this Section with obscuring a mark or rendering or allowing it to become not easily distinguishable shall not be liable to be convicted on the charge if he proves that he has taken all steps reasonably practicable to prevent the mark being obscured or rendered not easily distinguishable.
That goes a very long way, I think, to meet the point.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I hope this Amendment will not be withdrawn, though I agree it is not reasonable to ask the Minister of Transport to commit himself now. But I do not think he would in any way suffer by accepting these words without prejudice to his putting down an Amendment on the Report stage if so advised by the draftsman. If something of this kind is not done, this Bill may come up at three or four o'clock in the morning, and the matter will probably not be challenged at all, as there will be no one here, and we shall get no redress.

Sir A. BENN: The Sub-section reads:
If the mark to be fixed in accordance with this Act is not so fixed ….
What does "so fixed" mean? If it is three and a half inches from the centre of the glass and it ought to be three inches—

Sir E. GEDDES: We are not dealing with that point at the moment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do hope my right hon. Friend will not force it to a Division. We have been very agreeable to him this afternoon, and we might have criticised more, or perhaps taken more exception to things; but there is here put upon the person charged the onus of proving his innocence, which English law
never does. It is not fair. Motorists have to prove, supposing there is mud on our numberplate, that we have taken all steps reasonable and practicable to take it off—in other words, that we have got out on a muddy road and wiped the numberplate with our best silk handkerchief.

Sir E. GEDDES: That does not sound reasonable.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It would not, perhaps, be reasonable for my right hon. Friend to take his handkerchief, but the court might hold that it was reasonable that we should carry a rag for the purpose of wiping off the mud. I think the right hon. Gentleman might accept the words suggested. We cannot keep our eyes permanently on the Report stage. If he does accept the proposed Amendment we have a chance of putting down; an Amendment on the Report stage, and so has he, and the matter will not, therefore, be forgotten. He has been so amiable that I trust he will accede to the present request.

Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman can put down "wilfully and negligently" on the clear understanding that after he consults the draftsman he is at liberty either to withdraw the words or to put in other words. He is not in any way injured if he meets the wishes of the House, and it will save time now.

Sir E. GEDDES: On the understanding that, if necessary, I can revise the matter on Report, and because of the amiability of the Committee, I will accede to the request put to me.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "way" ["is in any way observed"], to insert the words "wilfully or negligently."

Mr. SPENCER: After all, there is another side to this question. I have known men who have taken every precaution to keep their number plate clean. I would not accuse any hon. Member of being guilty of excessive speed driving, and after an accident riding on, but there have been cases of that character, and therefore legislation of this kind is necessary in order to catch the guilty, although such a provision may sometimes inflict hardships on the innocent. After all,
people are constantly riding in motor cars and coming along streets in thickly-populated districts, and in those circumstances it may be to the advantage of some people to obscure the number plate.

Major HAMILTON: That would be wilful.

Mr. SPENCER: And the owner might plead that it had got covered with mud riding along the road. I would like to protect any hon. Member or any person who tries to keep his number plate clean, and who is cautious in driving through thickly-populated districts, but that does not meet the case. Cases have occurred of little children being run over and killed, and instead of the motorist stopping he has rushed away to escape detection. I know we should all be pleased to lay hands on those people, but I think the Minister of Transport might have consulted some other authority before acceding to this Amendment. I think he should have waited until he had consulted his own Department in order to find some words that would have met everybody's objection.

Dr. MURRAY: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not stuck to his guns in regard to this point. One of the reasons given by an hon. Member opposite is that if this point is left to the Report stage he might be disturbed in the smoke room.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "exceeding," to insert the words
in respect to the first offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and in respect of the second or subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding.
As the Bill stands at present, it is only a penalty of £20 for the first offence. You may be fined £50 if your number-plate is half an inch out of the centre-point wherever it may be ordered to be fixed. If the mark is not so fixed, or is in any way obscured, for each offence you are liable to a £50 penalty.

Sir E. GEDDES: I am willing to accept this Amendment with certain verbal alterations. The Amendment I suggest is as follows: After the words "Summary conviction," to insert the words "in respect of the first offence to a
penalty not exceeding twenty pounds and in respect of the second or subsequent offence."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendment made: In Subsection (2), after the word "conviction," insert the words, "in respect of the first offence to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, and in respect of the second or subsequent offence."— [Sir I. Philipps.]

Sir I. PHILIPPS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words
Provided also that a person shall not be liable to a penalty under this Section if he proves that he has had no reasonable opportunity of registering such vehicle in accordance with this Section, and that the vehicle is being driven on a public road for the purpose of being so registered.

Sir E. GEDDES: I do not think that I can accept this Amendment. There is no reason why a vehicle should be driven anywhere to be registered, because the whole thing can be done through the post. The form is filled up and sent to the local authority, and subsequently to the Post Office, and the vehicle need never go at all.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Viscount CURZON: On most private cars, and, indeed, on a large number of commercial vehicles, certain number plates are used at present which are not in accordance with the Regulations—I mean alluminium number plates. Those plates are so constructed that they do not comply with the requirements of the existing Motor Car Act. When the Minister is making his Regulations, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have it made quite clear exactly what is a legal number plate and what is not.

Mr. A. SHAW: Supposing an offence is committed under this section by a light being blown out and a conviction follows. Is that conviction to be endorsed on the driver's licence. We all know the grave injustice which ensues. A man, say a professional paid driver, meets with some accident by which his tail light is blown out. The conviction is endorsed on his
licence, and every time he goes to get a job that conviction, on a purely technical offence, remains for the rest of his life a black mark against him. Are these two Acts to be read together? The Act of 1903 provides that any offence, except the first or second offence of exceeding the speed limit, shall be endorsed on the driver's licence. We have all sorts of ridiculous offences, including a variation of one-sixteenth part of an inch in the number place, and the blowing out of a tail-light, and the magistrates must endorse them, they have no option. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether the comparatively trifling class of case covered by this section is to be endorsed on the driver's licence and remain a black mark against him for all time? I know no other offence in the criminal law which places so disabling a mark against a man as is placed against a motor driver under the provisions of the Motor Car Act, 1903. If my right hon. Friend is unable to give us an assurance that the provisions of this section are not to be read along with the Act of 1903, and that they do not include this life-long endorsing of the licence, I beg to give notice that on the Report stage, I shall move an Amendment to the effect that in none of these cases shall the driver's licence be endorsed, I hope that he will be able to tell us that he has had communications with his legal advisers on this subject, and that this very severe penalty, especially in the case of paid drivers, will not follow.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The whole thing should be wiped out and put an end to altogether. It is a discreditable thing to have it on the Statute Book.

Mr. NEAL: We must all be in sympathy with a good deal of what my hon. Friend has said. Under the provisions of the Motor Car Act, 1903, if a person who holds a driver's licence is convicted of any offence in connection with the driving of a motor car, other than a first or second offence, consisting solely of exceeding any limit of speed, he shall produce his driver's licence within a reasonable time for the purpose of endorsement. If my hon. Friend looks at Clause 6, he will see that it does not deal with drivers' licences at all. It is not an offence qua driver.

Mr. SHAW: I had occasion, when I was in practice, to go into this matter at
some length, and my hon. Friend may be amazed to find that all these offences, obscuration of numbers, and lamps going out have been held by the Divisional Court to be offences in connection with the driving of motor cars, and, of course, it follows that the driver of a motor car whose number becomes not easily distinguishable or obscured has his licence endorsed.

Mr. NEAL: All I can say is that the point is now raised for the first time, and we will give it very full consideration.

Sir A. BENN: I desire to support what the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon) has said and to urge that some steps should be taken to prevent people who were driving during the War, and who have letters slightly too small, finding themselves liable to this penalty. There are cars the letters on which are too small, and the owners are ignorant of the fact. There was a case where the letters were altered within 24 hours of the notice given by the police, and where the man three months afterwards was summoned and fined.

Sir F. FLANNERY: I want to remind my hon. Friend that this Clause provides that a person driving the vehicle and committing such an offence shall be fined. Therefore his statement that the penalty and the perpetuation of the penalty applies to those who fix the plate and not to the driver is not well founded. As a matter of fact, the driver is specifically mentioned.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: A young man who has had his licence endorsed ought, after some years, to be able to get a clean licence. In the Army, if a young fellow keeps clear for some years, he can get a clean default sheet. The same ought to obtain in the case of a young man who earns his livelihood as a motor driver. The law as it at present stands is archaic, and we ought to take this opportunity of removing any of these objectionable items. If they have not been brought to the hon. Gentleman's notice before, it is only because we have not wished to trouble such a courteous Gentleman too often.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Amendment of 59 & 60 Vict, c. 36, 3 Edw. 7, c. 36, and 9 Edw. 7, c. 37.)

(1) References in Section ten of the Motor Car Act, 1903, to motor cars shall be deemed to include references to vehicles within the moaning of this Act.

(2) The power of the Minister under Subsection (2) of Section twelve of the Motor Car Act, 1903, to make Regulations as to the speed of motor cars exceeding two tons in weight unladen shall include power to make Regulations as to the speed on any road of any agricultural tractor, whether it exceeds two tons in weight unladen or not.

(3) For the purposes of the Motor Car Acts, 1896 and 1903, and of any other enactments relating to the use of vehicles on roads, the weight unladen of any vehicle shall be taken to be the weight of the vehicle inclusive of the body and all parts (the heavier being taken where alternative bodies or parts are used) which are necessary to or oidinarily used with the vehicle when working on a road, but exclusive of the weight of water, fuel, or accumulators (other than boilers) used for the purpose of propulsion and of loose tools or loose equipment:

Provided that in the case of a vehicle which weighs more than seven and a quarter tons and is specially constructed so that all or part of the superstructure is a permanent, or essentially permanent, fixture and the axle weights of which do not exceed the maximum axle weights prescribed under the Motor Car Act, 1903, or any Act amending that Act, the weight unladen of the vehicle shall be deemed to be seven and a quarter tons.

(4) All sums received by a county council by way of fees for licences granted under Section three of the Motor Oar Act, 1903, and all penalties recovered in respect of offences under the Motor Car Acts, 1896 and 1903, shall be paid into the Exchequer.

(5) The Motor Car (International Circulation) Act, 1909, shall have effect as though the references therein to the Motor Car Act, 1903, included references to this Act.

Captain GANZONI: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words
and the Minister may in any Regulation made under this Sub-section authorise for the prescribed purposes the use of any agricultural tractor on any public road for the purpose of hauling any number of farm implements and machinery.
The Clause as at present drafted places an agricultural tractor under two tons weight in the category of a commercial car, with the result that there must be a reduction of speed when it is run on the road. At the same time, an agricultural tractor even under two tons can only have one trailer. The result will be that you will have to have an enormous number of journeys to carry the implements and
machinery necessary from one farm or field to another. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is undesirable. It wastes fuel and petrol, which is very costly and wanted. It means more use of the roads and of the farmer's capital, and it is not really necessary. If the hon. Gentleman can see his way to accept this Amendment I think it would be a very good thing. The Royal Agricultural Society desire it very much and it would save the farmer. I make no apology for bringing it forward. The only apology I could make is that I should be the one to propose the Amendment, seeing that I have never got nearer farming than intensive culture of mustard and cress at school.

Mr. NEAL: It is a little difficult to understand what my hon. and gallant Friend really desires to do by his Amendment. Under the Finance Act this class of vehicle is permitted to draw the following objects on the road: their own necessary gear, farming implements and supplies of fuel and material required for the purposes of the vehicle or for agricultural purposes.

Captain GANZONI: Where is that stated?

Mr. NEAL: In the Finance Act. Vehicles used solely in trade or agriculture are permitted to do this at the low duty of 5s., which is practically a registration fee. By Clause 7, with which we are now dealing and which my hon. Friend proposes to amend, the powers of the Ministry to make Regulations for motor cars are laid down, and they provide for the running of agricultural tractors whether they exceed two tons or not. Why we should be asked to authorise some greater use of haulage vehicles than that permitted by the Act when they escape the vehicular licence and are only charged the registration fee of 5s., I fail to understand. I trust the Amendment will not be pressed.

Captain GANZONI: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I understood however, that agricultural tractors could not be followed by more than one vehicle, whatever it was, and that was felt not only to be a great injustice but also uneconomical. As the hon. Gentleman says that agricultural tractors of this kind may not only carry
fuel and water but also have behind them agricultural vehicles to any reasonable number, I am willing to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Springburn Division of Glasgow (Mr. Macquisten) has nothing to do with this Clause, and I am rather doubtful whether it comes within the scope of the Bill. At any rate, if it does, it might be brought up as a new Clause. We are dealing in Clause 7 with weights and not with speed.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Amendment of s. 13 and Second Schedule of 10 & 11, Geo. 5, c. 18.)

(1) For the purpose of Section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920, and the Second Schedule to that Act, the expression "tramcar" shall not include any vehicle used on tram lines other than a tramcar used for the conveyance of passengers.

(2) In Sub-section (2) of Section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920, the word "using" shall be substituted for the word "keeping."

(3) For the purposes of paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1920, a vehicle shall not be deemed to be used otherwise than solely for the conveyance of goods in the course of trade by reason only that it is used for the conveyance in the course of their employment of persons who are in the employment of the person keeping the vehicle.

(4) Where a licence has been taken out as for a vehicle to be used solely for a certain purpose and the vehicle is at any time during the period for which the licence is in force used for some other purpose, the person so using the vehicle shall, if the rate of duty chargeable in respect of a licence for a vehicle used for that other purpose is higher than the rate chargeable in respect of the licence held by him, be liable on summary conviction to a penalty of an amount not exceeding three times the difference between the duty actually paid on the licence and the duty payable on a licence appropriate to a vehicle used for that other purpose or twenty pounds, whichever amount is the greater.

(5) Where a hackney carriage is a vehicle of the class mentioned in paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1920, it shall be charged with duty under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, as the case may be, and not under paragraph 3 of that Schedule.

(6) The expression "weight unladen" in the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1920, shall have the same meaning as in the Motor Car Acts, 1896 and 1903, as amended by this Act.

Sir E. GEDDES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "tramcar" ["expression 'tramcar'"] and to insert instead thereof the word "vehicle."

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: May we have an explanation of this? It seems to make the Clause ridiculous. Tramcars are liable to a 15s. duty; vehicles are liable to a far heavier duty, and if the word "tramcar" is left out and "vehicle" put in, all vehicles used on the tramway lines will be affected. What is in the mind of the Minister?

5.0 P.M.

Mr. NEAL: This is a drafting Amendment. The Clause must be read in connection with Section 13 of the Finance Act, 1920, Schedule 2, which lays it down that the expression "tramcar" shall not include any vehicle used on the tramlines other than tramcars used for the conveyance of passengers. That seems to be rather contradictory, and the Amendment proposes to substitute the word "vehicle," the effect of which would be that the only vehicles running on tramlines which would be subject to the 15s. duty would be passenger-carrying cars.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it the wish of the Government to withdraw from tramway companies the right to use their own tramlines for breakdown cars which now only have to pay the 15s. duty? I am told that on the London County Council's tramway undertaking there are something like twenty cars used for the repair of the tram track or for carrying water or sand on slippery days or for other purposes in connection with the undertaking, and if this goes in without amendment it will mean that all these vehicles which now only pay the 15s. duty will have to pay between £20 and £30. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us what is his real object. Is he going to make some further provision to exempt these vehicles from the operation of the higher licence duty? I quite see it is reasonable to limit the duty to passenger cars, and to those used for the purposes of the undertaking, and to shut out from its benefit any commercial vehicle which in the future may make arrangements with the tramway undertaking to carry goods or to be used for commercial purposes. I hope the object is not to throw any further burden on the companies.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I should like to know if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, to leave out the word "tramcar" and insert "vehicle," will prevent the consideration of my Amendment, which proposes to insert the words "or solely for the purposes of the tramway undertaking." I think those words cover the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, and would permit the tramway undertaking to carry along its lines vehicles carrying, not passengers, but workmen necessary for the execution of repairs on the line, and so on.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the one Amendment rules out the other.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words, "or solely for the purposes of the tramway undertaking."
It is well known that in addition to tramcars the companies run several electrically propelled vehicles entirely on the tram lines for the convenience of repair and construction, and the carrying of materials and workmen employed in connection with the tramways. These vehicles do not use the roads at all. They are not used for the purpose of conveying passengers, and there seems to be no reason why they should be liable for the duties imposed under Section 13 of the Finance Act of 1920. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to make it perfectly clear, by accepting this Amendment, that tramway companies will not be handicapped or penalised in regard to vehicles that are used for the ordinary purposes of the undertaking, such as executing repairs.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Member's Amendment is covered by the words which have just been agreed to, and the effect of which is that the only vehicles which come within the taxation of the Finance Act are vehicles that carry passengers. It seems to me now to exclude both the repair wagon and the material wagon. I will, however, put the Amendment before the Committee, in order that the point may be made quite clear.

Mr. NEAL: If I may say so, Mr. Whitley, you have dealt with the point very clearly. I am sorry that, in the 
desire to be brief, I did not make my explanation quite clear. If my hon. Friends will look at the Finance Act, they will see that the duty is attached to a vehicle—there is no taxation on anything but a vehicle. If the vehicle is a tramcar, a duty of 15s. attaches to it. By the Amendment which has just been agreed to, we have said that a vehicle which is used on a tram line and is liable to duty shall be nothing other than a tramcar for the conveyance of passengers. In other words, as the matter now stands, every vehicle running on the tram lines is exempted from duty except the passenger-bearing vehicle. My hon. Friend's Amendment would exclude any ether class of vehicle owned by a tramway undertaking and not running on the lines. For the purposes of their undertaking they have, for instance, lorries run by petrol, and the Amendment would exclude these.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I am afraid that the hon. gentleman's explanation still does not make the matter clear to me. It takes the breakdown car out of the class of vehicles referred to in the second schedule of the Finance Act; but, if it is taken out of that class, presumably it is transferred to the class of vehicles which pay a higher duty and do not run on tram lines, and are non-commercial vehicles.

Mr. NEAL: If my hon. and gallant friend will look at Sub-section (1), he will see that it expressly states that the expression "shall not include any vehicle used on tram lines other than a tramcar used for the conveyance of passengers."

The CHAIRMAN: I think the point is quite clear. If the words require any alteration, I would suggest the substitution of the word "except" for the words "other than."

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: It may be my stupidity, but I do not understand whether these vehicles are to pay any duty at all.

Mr. NEAL: No duty at all.

Mr. RAFFAN: As my name is associated with this Amendment, may I say, Mr. Whitley, that I think your suggestion would be better. I think it conveys the meaning more clearly.

Mr. NEAL: I shall be very glad, indeed, Mr. Whitley, to accept your advice and assistance. Accordingly I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "other than," and insert instead thereof the word "except."—[Mr. Neal.]

Leave out Sub-section (2).—[Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.]

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "shall" ["the person so using the vehicle shall, if the rate of duty chargeable"], to insert the words "if such person is proved to be cognisant of such other use."
Some such words as these are necessary, because, if a full licence is taken out for a vehicle of a certain class, and someone else uses that vehicle for a different purpose, he is liable to an enormous penalty, without, apparently, having any means of knowing what the original classification of the vehicle was. For instance, supposing that I were staying with my hon. Friend, and that he owns a traction engine, and that, wanting to get to the station in a hurry, I go on the traction engine—I am leaving out the question of speed limits. In that case I am using the vehicle for a purpose for which it was not registered. I am not, on that occasion, a person learned in the law—there is no necessity for me to know the law when I am staying with the hon. Gentleman—and I am unwittingly putting myself in the position of incurring an enormous penalty under the provisions of this Clause.

Mr. NEAL: I am quite unable to accept this Amendment. As a matter of verbal criticism, I think the words suggested by my hon. Friend should be inserted before the word "shall" rather than after it; but from the point of view of substance it is quite inconceivable that any person should use a vehicle in the manner suggested without being cognisant that he was using it for a purpose for which it was not licensed. The licence is on the vehicle. If it is a hackney carriage, it is marked as a hackney carriage, and if a person uses it for any other purpose he is cognisant of the fact. I think that, if my hon. Friend
did as he suggested, he would have ceased temporarily to be a person learned in the law. This Bill provides a scheme under which it is difficult to understand how a person could lawfully and properly use a vehicle for any other purpose than that for which it is registered. It is extremely important, from our point of view, to prevent the taking out of licences at a lower rate, and the subsequent use of the vehicle for purposes which carry a higher duty. I do not think that there is anything very serious in my hon. Friend's objection, I trust that he will not find it necessary to press the point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Viscount CURZON: May I ask one question? It is stated that in Subsection (2) of Section 13 of the Finance Act, 1920, the word "using" shall be substituted for the word "keeping." I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would state what exactly is the Ministry's definition of the user of a motor vehicle. Is it the driver?

Major HAMILTON: Is it not the case that we have omitted Sub-section (2) in which that occurs, so that the question of the word "using" does not come in?

Viscount CURZON: I beg pardon. I had forgotten that.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—Provision as to licence duty in case of manufacturers or dealers in mechanically-propelled vehicles.)

(1) If any person being a manufacturer of or dealer in vehicles makes, in the prescribed manner, an application in that behalf to the council of the county in which his business premises are situate, that he may be entitled, in lieu of taking out a licence for each vehicle kept by him at the appropriate rate of duty chargeable under the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1920, to take out a general licence in respect of all vehicles used by him the council may, subject to the prescribed conditions, issue to him such a licence on payment of duty at the yearly rate of fifteen pounds, or, in the case of a licence chargeable with duty under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 of the said Schedule at the yearly rate of two pounds:

Provided that—

(a) licences under this Section at the yearly rate of fifteen pounds may be taken for one quarter of the year only beginning the first day of January, the twenty-fifth day of March, the first day of July, or the first day of October, and in the case of any licence so taken out the duty shall be thirty per cent, of the full annual duty; and
(b) the holder of any licence issued under this Section shall not be entitled by virtue of that licence to use on any road more than one vehicle at any one time, or to use any vehicle on a road for any purpose other than such purposes as may be prescribed; and
(c) nothing in this Section shall operate to prevent a person entitled to take out a general licence from holding two or more such licences.

(2) Provision may be made by Regulations under this Act for assigning a general identification mark to a person holding any licence issued under this Section.

(3) If any person is aggrieved by the refusal of a council to issue a general licence under this Section he may appeal to the Minister, and the Minister shall on any such appeal make such Order in the matter as he thinks just, and the council shall comply with any Order so made.

An Order made by the Minister under this provision shall be final and not subject to appeal to any Court.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "the" ["to the council of the county"], to insert the word "county."
Having used the term "county council," I do not understand why a different expression is used here. There seems to be no necessity for it and it will only create confusion.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the Amendment will make nonsense, and cannot be moved.

Mr. ATKEY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "duty at the yearly rate of fifteen pounds" and insert instead thereof the words "a fee not exceeding five pounds."
I understand it is the intention of the Minister to make some modification of this amount, and an intimation has been given that a suggested reduction of £10 would not be resisted by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that he had come here this afternoon with the full intention of being agreeable to the Committee. I want him to be generous enough to increase the sphere of those
who will appreciate his attitude by meeting those traders who are intimately concerned with this Clause. From the point of view of the trade, it is undoubtedly the most vital of any contained in this Bill. I appreciate the reasons which have led the right hon. Gentleman to include this payment. No payment of this character was ever suggested in the original Bill and this is all extra revenue, and in fact duplicate revenue. I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's idea that all cars using the roads shall pay their fair share in respect of such user, but he is going to get from the private user of the car a very considerable measure of revenue for which no user will be possible. For instance, take the question of a private person taking out a licence in the middle of a quarter. Obviously the Ministry of Transport will get the benefit of such portion of the quarter that has passed before the licence has been taken out, and there will be a considerable margin in the hands of the Ministry arising from that source. What will the position of the trader be in that respect? There are two classes of trader who will be primarily affected. There is, first, the manufacturer and, secondly, the retailer. So far as the manufacturer is concerned, if this fee of £10 remains it will put an intolerable burden upon the industry of the motor-car manufacturer, who is already heavily pressed and is suffering under most adverse conditions, because while manufacturers require very considerable user of the roads it is very small indeed in respect of any particular vehicle, and the purpose for which they will have to pay £10 is in the main merely for the purpose of delivering a car from their works to the town in which it is to be received, and the moment the car arrives at its destination a licence has to be taken out by the person who has bought the car, and therefore this charge only arises in respect of the use of the car from the moment it leaves the works until it reaches the purchaser, and that will be paid for in full by the purchaser of the car.
Manufacturers may often require a large number of cars for a comparatively small distance at the same time, and I ask the Committee to contemplate the unnecessary burden and charge of paying £10 per plate for the purpose of delivering, we will say, on any particular day 100, 200, or it may be 300 cars from the manu-
facturer's works to a port for the purpose of exporting. Such a charge would be entirely unreasonable in view of the user of the road which would be made. Then there is another section of traders who would be very heavily hit if this proposal went through, and that is the small retailer. I believe there are 7,000 or 8,000 of these small traders who have a right of user in all the town and country districts, and most of them have occasion to take delivery of a limited number of cars during the year. Some of them only take perhaps half a dozen cars during the whole year. If he is so fortunate as to require to take delivery of two cars in the same day, he has to pay £20 for the purpose of these plates, which will be hanging up in his garage for the balance of the year unused, and I am sure that user has certainly been paid by the customer to whom he delivers the car. This will place an almost intolerable burden alike upon the manufacturer and the agent, and I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment. In the early stages of the Bill much play was made by some critics of the fact that there has been gross abuse in regard to the present number-plates on the part of the trade. I am not here to justify or condone the abuse of any law, but there is a very heavy contra account against the law on the part of motorists who have been most wickedly fleeced and robbed in the name of the law, and speaking as a motorist and a human being, any way I could possibly get back on the law because of the many injustices it has perpetrated upon the unfortunate motorist would be a source of infinite gratification to me. I hope, therefore, I may impress on the right hon. Gentleman the wisdom of meeting this case. If he will meet this request I can promise him that manufacturers and agents alike will only be too willing to co-operate with him in stamping out any abuse which may possibly creep in, and I ask him not to prejudge the possibility of any abuses in the first instance but to fix this fee at a reasonably minimum amount and let it run at that for a period, and if then he can show that there is unfair and unreasonable user of the road in consideration of the amount paid, I am sure no trader or trade association will raise any obstacle to any Amendment he may care to make. I am sure he will admit that in matters connected with the motor
industry generally the representatives of the trade association have met him very fairly. They are willing to co-operate with him most cordially, and on their behalf I hope he will accept the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I desire to support the Amendment. On public grounds I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to press for this very high penalty. When a car is delivered to the purchaser he pays the tax, and gets a licence, which provides money for the Road Fund. Prior to this Bill manufacturers and agents paid £3, I think, for which they could have a hundred of these plates, so that it was merely a registration fee and not taxation. The motor industry has agreed to pay taxation to the amount of eight or nine millions per year, and the trade did not suppose there was going to be an attempt to raise another quarter of a million. The trade is quite willing that registration should be continued. In no other country in the world is there this tax on the motor trade. In the United States, France, I believe in Germany, there is merely a registration fee, such as was imposed here prior to the Bill. This proposal would put a serious burden on manufacturers here which their rivals in foreign countries do not have to pay. The motor trade is at present in a very different condition from what it was in the spring. Several motor firms have closed down, one of the biggest is only kept going because the workpeople agreed to a 25 per cent. reduction in wages, and in some cases receivers have been appointed. The Stock Exchange list shows the fall in the shares of the industry. This is not the time to put increased taxation upon the trade. The Minister, on Second Reading, defended this tax because of the abuses which had taken place. I am convinced from evidence he placed before me that there were abuses, and that people used to drive to Hindhead or elsewhere on the supposition that they were testing a car when there was really no such intention. I desire, with the authority of the trade, to make two suggestions on behalf of the Association of Motor Manufacturers to meet this question. In the first place they will accept any Regulations the right hon. Gentleman makes to render impossible abuse of these trade plates, with any penalties he likes to suggest for improper use of these plates for purposes other than trade
purposes; and, secondly, that these plates should not be allowed to be used on Sundays at all. Everybody knows Sunday is the day when motor cars are largely used. The purpose of this taxation is nominally in order to pay for the use of the roads. Not to use these plates on Sundays would effectively abolish the abuse, and ensure the using of those plates for the purpose of carrying on the manufacture, testing and delivery of cars from the manufacturer. I strongly support the Amendment, and ask the right hon. Gentleman not to put any burden on this industry at present.

Viscount CURZON: I wish also to support the Amendment. I am very much concerned at the position of the motor industry. I believe it to be true to say that it is in very low water indeed, and I think we should hesitate before wishing to place any further direct burden on the industry. Can the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the very serious position of the industry, postpone the coming into operation of this increased fee for trade number plates, and to postpone it for at least a year. Then if there is abuse he can increase the figure to whatever he thinks right. I feel that the motor industry is absolutely vital to this country. It is an industry which performed the greatest service on land, sea, and in the air during the War.

Sir E. GEDDES: I do not think the subject has been put quite fairly in describing this as a penalty. The principle of the new taxation is that the users shall pay for the roads, and for better or worse we adopted a certain scale. The last thing I would wish to do would be to do any injury to the motor industry, but we have to compromise in those matters and to see what we can do to meet the views of both sides. There are those who think very strongly that the cars on test, moving from place to place, and being used for administration purposes, should pay the full tax. It is very difficult to say what is a fair figure to put on for the road user by these cars. I agree there has been a great deal of flagrant abuse, which, after all, the legislation in a way encouraged, because you got a licence and you could duplicate plates as much as you liked. Abuses or frauds, for that is what it is, will be far more likely now, because the charge is
higher. I am very glad to hear from the hon. Baronet that the trade has at any rate wakened up to a sense of its responsibilities in the matter. I hope they will take steps to prevent the flagrant misuse of these registration plates whatever the tax may be If they do not stop it it will be essential in the near- future to take further steps by legislation to prevent it. I hope that they will do that in recognition of the trust which the Government is placing in them now. But these red number plates are a great advantage. We have adopted the principle of road users as a basis of taxation. I am anxious to reduce the rate of taxation as much as possible, but it is difficult to arrive at what is a reasonable tax and whether it is oppressive or not. I have got here two extreme cases. One firm, which was using five plates, got 16,600 miles per annum, and another firm with two plates got only 50 miles per annum. I cannot see how you are going to work it out and say whether it is going to be oppressive or not. The whole thing was considered most exhaustively by a Committee. I do not think that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders heard the evidence or were represented on the Committee. Subsequently, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry met these gentlemen. After hearing the whole story, after considering the concession of the normal rate from £15, the Committee on again looking into the matter recommended me to accept £10 instead of £15. Splitting the difference is a very usual manner of settling these matters, and I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham will accept this suggestion.

Mr. ATKEY: I would be quite willing to consider a solution on the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend but he came here with the knowledge that £10 had been agreed on.

Sir E. GEDDES: It has not been agreed on.

Mr. ATKEY: Not formally but the suggestion has been made. That was what my right hon. Friend had in mind. If he cannot meet me all the way the proper way to try to meet our proposal is from two points of view because this £10 will be an intolerable burden. £3 has been the total paid by the wealthiest manfacturer for unlimited facilities. My right hon. Friend now suggests £10 for one
plate. He has given an example of how unfairly it may work out. For instance the person who has two plates and uses the road to the extent of 50 miles will pay £20 for the 50 miles. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make some concession. The concession which he is suggesting is one which he had up his sleeve before he came here.

Sir F. FLANNERY: I must express surprise and regret that the hon. Member for Nottingham has not at once accepted gratefully the concession that has been made. It seems to me that the whole case made by the hon. Member and by my hon. Friend (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) is completely answered not by the concession, but by the statement of my right hon. Friend, which is true, that the dealer or manufacturer can and does recover in the majority of cases the initial outlay on licensing on the sale of the car. I have been a purchaser of cars for ten or twelve years, and I know the practice. I know that when the maker or dealer does the registration, as he can by arrangement with the purchaser, there is an addition to the price of the car which reimburses the cost of registration. That is the whole case. Therefore no manufacturer and no dealer has a grievance when he trades upon that system. But there was one point which the hon. Member raised which struck me as thoroughly reasonable. That was that the amount of licence for a car which is intended for export should be recoverable when payment has to be made merely for the purpose of transporting the car from the place of manufacture to the place of embarkation. There undoubtedly is a hardship in this not being done. Possibly my right hon. Friend will consider this before the Report stage, with a view to providing machinery for reimbursing the manufacturer who is exporting. That is a real point of importance. I am surprised that my hon. Friend has not accepted the concession offered. I am a little surprised that it was made by the Minister, but, having been made, I think that it ought to be welcomed by the Committee.

Captain GANZONI: I also put my name to the Amendment, and I would ask the Minister if he would not meet us a little further. I would call attention to the number of ex-service men and women who are affected. Many of them
are in partnerships in garage businesses, and have only small capital with which they buy cars and sell cars on commission. The Government proposal would be a burden on such people.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. ATKEY: Can I propose now to insert the words "ten pounds"?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): I have called upon the hon. Member to move the next Amendment standing in his name on the Paper.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think there is some misunderstanding. I thought the Minister was going to move the insertion of the words "ten pounds."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Atkey) did not withdraw his Amendment, and the Committee has decided that the words he proposed to leave out shall stand part of the Clause.

Mr. ATKEY: I did not wish to withdraw my Amendment, but I did not understand that my action debarred me, if my Amendment was defeated, from moving another Amendment to insert the words "ten pounds."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is what has happened.

Sir F. FLANNERY: On a point of Order. I submit to you that there has been a little error. The words "of fifteen pounds" stand, as you put the Question, but my right hon. Friend no doubt—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order. We cannot go into that.

Sir F. FLANNERY: It is a point of Order for the Report stage.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not my business now to decide points in reference to the Report stage of the Bill.

Mr. ATKEY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "at the yearly rate of two pounds" and to insert instead thereof the words "not exceeding twenty shillings."
This is a concession which I hope the Minister will make in connection with motor cycles.

Sir E. GEDDES: Exactly the same point arises here as in the last case. The matter has been very carefully considered. It is not all additional taxation, because the traders, the agents, are paying the petrol tax to-day, and if you take into account the difference in the value of money there is not much in it.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is it proposed to make any concession here on motor cycles?

Sir E. GEDDES: According to the re-commendations.

Sir W. JOYNSON HICKS: I hope the hon. Member for Nottingham will accept this concession. As an older Parliamentary hand I ought to have been more alert on the last occasion.

Mr. ATKEY: I do not know how to put it, but I am taking the concession.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "at the yearly rate of two pounds," and insert instead thereof the words "not exceeding thirty shillings."

In Sub-section (1, b) leave out the words "on any road." Leave out the words "on a road."

At the end of Sub-section (3) insert the words "and shall, on the application of the Minister, be enforceable by writ of mandamus."—[Sir B. Geddes.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Power to modify or determine charges for use of vehicles on roads.)

Where any persons are, whether by virtue of any Act or otherwise, liable to pay any sums, by way of mileage charges or other annual payments, in respect of the use of any road by their vehicles, the Minister may, on an application by those persons in that behalf and after considering any objections made by any person interested, suspend, modify, or determine the liability to make the payment, as he shall think fit.

Sir F. BLAKE: I beg to move, after the word "any" ["objections made by any person interested"], to insert the words "council or".

Mr. NEAL: This Amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment negatived.

Sir F. BLAKE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words
Provided that the power conferred on the Minister by this Section shall not be deemed to extend to any sums now or hereafter payable by any persons, whether by virtue of any Act or otherwise, and whether in one sum or by annual or other instalments, by way of charges for the adaptation, alteration, or reconstruction of any road used by their vehicles.
There are good reasons why in the introduction of this motor taxation, mileage rates should cease, but the County Councils' Association do not see why that should apply in the case of adaptation charges, that is, charges which are made for the purpose of assisting in the reconstruction necessary to render roads fit for carrying heavy traffic. These charges should still be made, because we understand that the proceeds of the new taxation will go almost entirely in repairs, and adaptation work is still being carried on. The Government itself makes considerable subventions for the purpose. In a neighbouring northern county they have made a large subvention to the county council to enable the county council to reconstruct their roads, and in certain places the corporations which are running motor vehicles have entered into arrangements with the county councils when the vehicles are run outside their areas that they shall contribute towards the cost of reconstruction of the roads, so as to make them fit for carrying the heavier traffic.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. NEAL: I am not quite sure that the words of my hon. Friend's Amendment will deal with the case he has in mind, even if it could be accepted by the Government. I am afraid it cannot be accepted. The Amendment refers to payments in a lump sum or by annual or other instalments. The class of case which the hon. Member has in mind is not generally covered by the mileage charge or an annual payment, but by a lump sum. That is a matter which I suggest for his consideration if he desires to press this question further. The situation dealt with in Clause 10 is one of considerable importance. It deals with any Act of Parliament which imposes upon local authorities, when they wish to run motor vehicles outside their own area, the burden of a mileage charge. I understand from my hon. Friend that he, and the county councils he represents, realise that the scheme of the proposed new taxa-
tion is that that class of charge should disappear. The Minister has very carefully considered whether he should seek, by specific words in the Clause directed to the purpose, to invite Parliament to repeal legislation which has that effect. There was a good deal to be said for that point of view, but ultimately it was thought wiser to deal with it in the way now suggested. My hon. Friend has given an instance, and there may be others where it might not be just wholly to abrogate the charge. Therefore, Clause 10 is drawn with a view to putting upon the Minister the judicial function of considering applications on their merits, and suspending, modifying, or determining the liability to make payment as he shall think fit. We realise that there is a substantial difference in character between a mileage charge and one of these charges by way of a lump sum payment or otherwise which may be part of a bargain or a statutory provision for the maintenance of roads. We think it wiser not to attempt by mandatory words to limit the discretion of the Minister, who will be acting in a judicial capacity. He will consider the whole of these cases on their merits. In that event he will not forget that there is the difference to which my hon. Friend has called attention. Under these circumstances, I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11.—(Special provisions as to hackney carriages.)

(1) There shall, subject to the prescribed exceptions, be exhibited on every vehicle which is chargeable with duty as a hackney carriage, in conjunction with the mark required under this Act to be fixed on the vehicle indicating the registered number of the vehicle, a distinctive sign indicating that the vehicle is a hackney carriage and the number of persons which the vehicle seats, and regulations made by the Minister under this Act shall provide for the sign to be so exhibited.

The penalties imposed by this Act in relation to the identification mark to be fixed to a vehicle shall apply to the sign to be exhibited under this provision as they apply to the identification mark so to be fixed.

(2) Where a licence has been taken out in respect of any vehicle at the rate of duty appropriate to a hackney carriage seating not more than a certain number of persons, the person keeping the vehicle shall, if it is used on any occasion for the purpose of
carrying more persons that the number aforesaid, be liable on summary conviction to a penalty of an amount not exceeding three times the difference between the duty actually paid on the licence and the duty payable on a licence for a vehicle being a hackney carriage seating the number of persons so carried, or twenty pounds, whichever amount is the greater.

Mr. NEAL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "carrying" ["purpose of carrying"] and to insert instead thereof the word "seating."
This Amendment, and the one which immediately follows, is intended to deal with a certain situation that has arisen. The vehicle is taxed according to its seating capacity and the provision in Clause 11 is that if the vehicle is used for a greater number of persons than it is taxed in respect of, it shall be liable to pay a higher duty. It has been represented to my right hon. Friend by a number of omnibus owners and hackney carriage owners that there is a view of this Clause which might work considerable public inconvenience. We all know that it is absolutely essential that sometimes persons should stand inside some of these public vehicles. When there has been a great event happening, vehicles become overcrowded, and it is usually permitted that a limited number of persons, four or five, may stand inside the vehicle. By so doing there may be a breach of police regulations and police Acts, but we do not propose to interfere with that by this Amendment. We propose to meet the views of the omnibus proprietors, and not to say that they shall come under liability to pay a higher duty because they permit people in time of pressure to stand in the vehicles. It is purely from the revenue point of view that we are concerned, and not the police point of view.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: in Sub-section (2) leave out the words "the number of persons so carried, or twenty pounds, whichever amount is the greater" and insert instead thereof the words "that greater number of persons"— [Mr. Neal].

Sir E. GEDDES: I beg to move, after Sub-section (2), to insert a new Subsection—
(3) Where not less than twelve hackney vehicles of a similar type, and belonging to one owner, are registered with a county council, and the council is satisfied that
one of those vehicles (hereinafter referred to as "the old vehicle") has been destroyed or withdrawn permanently from use as a hackney vehicle, the council shall, on issuing to that owner a licence in respect of another hackney vehicle to he used for the same purpose as the old vehicle, allow a rebate from the duty payable on that licence at the rate of one-quarter of the duty paid in respect of the licence for the old vehicle for every complete three months between the date when the old vehicle was destroyed or withdrawn, and the expiration of the licence for that vehicle, and where any such rebate is so allowed the licence for the old vehicle shall be forthwith cancelled.
This is really quite a simple provision. Where there is a hackney carriage undertaking which owns not less than 12 vehicles—that excludes the small man who owns two or three—and which is renewing on a programme the licence for the vehicles which drop out through obsolescence may be transferred to the new vehicles.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(Regulations.)

"(1) The Minister may make Regulations generally for the purpose of carrying this Act into effect, and in particular, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, may make Regulations—

(a) with respect to the registration of vehicles; and
(b) requiring local authorities to make the prescribed returns with respect to vehicles registered with them, and for making any particulars contained in the register available for use by the prescribed persons; and
(c) prescribing the size, shape and character of the identification marks or the signs to be fixed on any vehicle and the manner in which those marks or signs are to be displayed; and
(d) requiring any person to whom any vehicle is sold or disposed of to furnish the prescribed particulars in the prescribed manner; and
(e) providing for the issue of registration books in respect of the registration of any vehicle, and for the surrender and production, and the inspection by the prescribed persons, of any book so issued, and for the issue of new registration books and new licences in the place of any such hooks or licences which may be lost or destroyed, and for the fee (not exceeding twenty shillings) to be paid on the issue of a new registration book or licence; and
(f) prescribing the form of, and the particulars to be included in, the register with respect to vehicles for which a general licence has been taken out
2704
by a manufacturer or dealer, and the identification marks to be carried by any such vehicle, and defining the purposes for which the holder of a general licence may use a vehicle on a road; and
(g) prohibiting or restricting, on the application of the county council concerned, the driving of any vehicle or any class of vehicle on any specified highway or part of a highway; and
(h) extending any provisions as to registration, and provisions incidental to any such provisions, to any vehicles in respect of which duty under Section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920, is not payable, and for providing for the identification of any such vehicles; and
(i) prescribing any matter which is to be prescribed under this Act.

(2) County councils shall comply with any Regulations so made by the Minister under this Act.

(3) If any person acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with, any Regulations made under this Act he shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds."

Sir F. BLAKE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "may" ["The Minister may"], to insert the words "after consultation (except as to paragraph (g) hereof) with the county councils."
This is moved in the interests of peace, harmony, and good will.

Mr. NEAL: I think I can satisfy the Committee that these words will not be necessary, in view of a Government Amendment which stands on the Paper a little lower down, to secure that the Regulations shall be laid before Parliament.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, b), to leave out the words "local authorities," and to insert instead thereof the words "county councils."

Mr. NEAL: I accept this.

Amendment agreed to.

Viscount CURZON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, e), to leave out the words "registration books" ["providing for the issue of registration books"], and to insert instead thereof the words "particulars of the entry in the books of any registration authority."
The object of this Amendment is to ascertain, if possible, what are the inten-
tions of the Ministry in regard to the registration book. What has appeared in the Press rather suggests the registration book may be to provide a life history of the car and must be transferable with the vehicle. The object of that appears to be to guard against theft, but actually the effect of this registration book will be to impose a most intolerable nuisance upon many private individuals who do not keep a large staff to deal with such books. Furthermore, there is always a chance of losing a document of this description, or of unwittingly making false entries in it, or entering it up in the wrong way. In any case, it means an additional burden, and what we want to find out is exactly what the Ministry intends to do with it. Possibly it may be intended to stop the traffic in stolen cars, but, if so, it seems to me much more a matter for the police than for the Ministry of Transport. Furthermore, I cannot see what advantage it has over the Excise licence. Already in this Bill we are providing for the Excise licence to be carried. If the Excise licence is carried on every vehicle, and inspected by the police, it should be possible to identify vehicles which are stolen. A book of this description, I imagine, can be forged just as easily as any other document, and, therefore, it cannot really stop the traffic in stolen cars. Another thing I would like to know is, what is going to happen to the owner when he tries to sell a car? Supposing I want to sell a car to somebody else by means of an intermediary, I suppose the registration book will pass with the vehicle. That means that I shall have to disclose my identity to the person to whom I am selling my car. I may not wish to do that. It may very seriously affect the price I might get for the car. Therefore, I do wish the Minister would give us a little more information about these registration books, and could get over the difficulty I indicate with regard to disclosing my identity to the person to whom I am selling a car. I understand that if the registration book is lost, a charge will be made for renewing it of one pound. This seems to me a very large charge.

Mr. NEAL: There is an Amendment to that. I think I can, in very few words, relieve my Noble Friend of the anxiety he feels upon this matter. The scheme of licensing and registration has the unanimous recommendation of the most repre-
sentative body that could be got together. A Departmental Committee unanimously recommended it as a relief to the motorist, and not a burden. The motorist gets his registration book automatically on paying his licence duty the first time, and that book is sent to him, and contains the particulars which he will wish to have. It helps him in all cases in dealing with the car, and there is no need for him to reveal his identity until he has sold the car, and the transaction is completed, and the registration book handed over. The registration book has not to be carried about in the car, but will be really a very great convenience that is reasonable. We believe, and I think rightly, that the suggested provision will be really a very great convenience ultimately to motor car owners.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: I am one of those who cannot accept this as a very reasonable or sensible proposal. For the first time we are having our property looked after by the right hon. Gentleman and his officials. I believe my watch has a number, but that does not make me keep a book somewhere at home to prove to anyone some time or another that it is my watch. Why all these limitations and restrictions about my property because it happens to be a motor car? We thought we were going to get a little freedom when we were getting new laws about motor cars. Instead of that we are getting deeper and deeper into the mire. I am not quite certain what the object of it all is. There is a good deal of talk about stolen motor cars, but what has that to do with the Ministry? This provision is going a great deal further than the country is in any way aware. This is compulsory conscription for motorists under a scheme, it appears to me, worked out by the Army Council for military purposes of which we have been told nothing. You have not got this sort of thing today except in relation to the sale of land or stocks and shares. [An HON. MEMBER: "And ships!"] Why should you have it in the case of motor cars? I think it is most unfortunate that we should have more than this registration label on the car. We have accepted that. What the use of this registration book is I cannot see. We are told it has something to do with the traffic in stolen motor cars, but that has to do with the police, not with the Ministry of Transport. I hope this proviso will be struck out. It is not
necessary. It is unfair to the people of this country. It hampers our liberty and makes us absolute slaves of the Ministry of Transport. I believe there is some ulterior motive in this: some form of compulsory conscription, if not for motorists, certainly for motor cars, and without any other object. Therefore I object to the whole system of registration, and I hope we shall not adopt it.

Mr. BILLING: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, as he seems likely to do, he might let us know why we should have these books. If the War Office, in their wisdom, think it is desirable to have registration of motor vehicles for any possible offensive measures by our present Allies, or potential enemies, then personally I daresay that is quite all right. But I do not think we ought to go that way without knowing it. I think the Government has some obligation to be frank even if only in little matters and on rare occasions. I appeal to the Minister of Transport to be frank in regard to this matter. If we, as motorists, are prepared to put up with this fresh intrusion upon our liberties, I respectfully suggest that we should not be asked to pay for the privilege of having our cars registered in the interests of national defence, because, in my view, that is stretching the matter a good deal too far. The hon. and gallant Member for Southampton gave us a list of things that he could sell without interference, but I would like to remind him that he cannot sell a ship without disclosing the name of the owner.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: I did not refer to ships.

Mr. BILLING: I know the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to watches. There are, however, two things which this Committee has a right to ask, and the first is, what is the real reason for the introduction of these registration books? I think there should be a gradual reduction of bureaucratic control. I suppose the only effect of this proposal will be that it will provide jobs for at least another 500 people. One way of keeping the Government in power is to have plenty of jobs to give out. I, for one, resent anything which tends to take away from us the liberty, about which we boast so much, which is gradually becoming a
thing of the past. I asked the Minister of Transport to give us an assurance that this proposal will not be used as the thin end of the wedge for further restrictions.

Sir E. GEDDES: I am sorry that this proposal is looked upon as a sinister move to commandeer motor cars or any connivance with the War Office, because that is quite a misunderstanding of this provision. A book has a very grandiose sound, but this is not really a book, it is a folded card introduced for simplicity and economy. All the motorist has to do is to apply for the only form he ever fills up, and he sends that with a cheque to the county council. He knows exactly what his motor car is. He then gets a licence and he gets this book. I wish it had never been called a book at all. He then keeps it, just the same as he keeps his gun licence or anything else, in the drawer of his desk, and when the next year comes round he does not have to hunt up his chauffeur and get the horse power of his car, or make out any more particulars or fill up any more forms; he simply takes it to the nearest post office, and it is handed back to him with a fresh licence. I have the book here in my hand. It was devised as the simplest and most economical way of carrying out the taxation of vehicles on the horse power. It is a handy little folder, which those who wish to get a new licence can send to the post office and have it filled up and get a new licence. There is nothing complicated about it, and there is no question of asking people to be docketed or of putting labels upon them.

Mr. ATKEY: Is it necessary for that document to go with the car? Is it the property of the person who owns the car for the time being?

Sir E. GEDDES: If the car be sold, this document on the completion of the purchase goes with the car, because the licence belongs to the car and goes with the car. The Noble Lord is fearful that if he sells one of his cars it may not fetch as much on the market as the car of my hon. Friend. He need not disclose that it is his car until he has the cheque. There is no reason to say whose car it is until it is sold.

Mr. BILLING: Is that paper the title to the possession of the car, and would it be illegal to drive a car which one has purchased unless one has that title to it?

Sir E. GEDDES: No, it is not a title; it is a registration.

Viscount CURZON: Why should I disclose to anybody that it has been my car? What possible use can it be to the Government or to the buyer to know that the car has ever belonged to me? I do not know whether the House realises what has to be done when one sells a car. First of all, the vendor has to record the sale transaction in the registration book. Then he has to send the book to the registration authority. The purchaser has to notify the registration authority in his area that he has purchased the car. Then the vendor's registration authority has to cancel the registration in its records and send the registration book to the registration authority of the purchaser, and the last named authority has to enter the necessary particulars on its record and finally forward the document to the purchaser, who retains it. That is the operation which everybody who sells a car has to go through, and I do submit that the right hon. Gentleman should try to help us out of the difficulty with regard to this registration book.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: The Noble Lord did not say that there is a fine of £50 every time that one makes a mistake in carrying out these negotiations. The Minister has not yet told us the benefit of this book. It has all the horrors of a registration book, and, though it may be nice to call it a handy little folder, it does not get out of the difficulty pointed out by the Noble Lord. It is really a very serious matter to inflict this burden on a very large number of people in this country, especially in view of all the penalties that are to be attached. My right hon. Friend evidently, judging from the affectionate way in which he handled it, finds that this folder has a great attraction for him. I am sure the public generally will not be attracted by it at all. If the right hon. Gentleman had sat on local benches far away from London he would have realised the vast numbers of people who have failed to properly carry out even the present simple registration Regulations, and if these new Regulations are imposed the number of defaulters will be vastly increased. Are you going to impose them on boys and girls riding motor cycles? Are they likely to carry out all these Regulations? People will not stand this bureaucratic interference. I think the
right hon. Gentleman—and I do not say this antagonistically to him, for I have done my best not to oppose him on this Bill—is embarking on a course which will prove impracticable and impossible. People will not fill up these forms. It is bad enough now for some of us to have a pocket-book full of gun, game, motor, and driving licences. If we are also to carry about the right hon. Gentleman's nice little folder—

Sir E. GEDDES: You can leave that at home.

Sir I. PHILIPPS: Then you have to build a house to put it in. I believe this is going to be a great infliction on a very large number of people. After all, we have not had one single reason given us by the Minister why he should not tear up this little folder and have done with it altogether.

Sir E. GEDDES: I think I have given a reason and it is that it is the most economical and most convenient way of getting a renewal of licences for motorcars without having to draw out afresh each year all the particulars. The postal clerk to whom we are entrusting the work will simply have to look at what is written on this paper and will be able to grant a renewal of a licence while the owner of the vehicle will be saved all trouble about filling in new forms and giving particulars of his car. I repeat it is a most economical and convenient way of dealing with this question.

Sir F. FLANNERY: I was much struck by the statement of the Noble Lord (Viscount Curzon) explanatory of the processes which are involved by this paper. The statement was very impressive, but if the Noble Lord had ever had his motor-car stolen, I am sure he would have made it still more impressive. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman has any statistics he can give the House as to the increase in the thefts of motor-cars, or any comparison with the number of similar thefts in America. There is no doubt that thefts are on the increase to an enormous extent. They are carried out by skilful persons who quickly remove all the identification marks in the cars themselves, and I know very many people who have suffered in that way and have never been able to trace their cars. If these complications harass the honest
seller of a motor, I am sure it is worth his while, having regard to the safety against stealing which we will thereby obtain.

Mr. ATKEY: The Parliamentary Secretary apparently suggests that this scheme is devised in the interests of motorists and motor owners, but, speaking on my own behalf and that of other motorists, I say that that is entirely wrong. This is another case in which the Government have been guided by their official advisers, and have absolutely flouted the judgment and advice of the House of Commons. It is merely another irritating restriction on the motor owner. This book, which has now become a piece of paper, has to be kept. It is only required once a year, and it is suggested that a document of that sort will facilitate the renewal of a licence. So far as I know, the present arrangements give rise to very little difficulty. You fill up a form, get the licence, and that ends the matter. There is no obligation to keep any paper or record from year to year. I protest against the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary that this scheme represents the wishes of the private motorist, or is designed to meet his convenience. It is nothing of the sort; it is another idea of a Departmental Committee for finding jobs for people in another public department. I protest against this kind of legislation being forced through the House of Commons against what I am sure will be the considered judgment of all those who have taken an interest in the matter.

Mr. BILLING: The present procedure is that you get your Inland Revenue form, fill it in, and post it, and that is the last you hear of it. Under this new procedure you cannot post the form, but have to go down to the post office with it, while it is adding one more form and not eliminating any other form. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he can give us any idea as to whether this will increase the staff required and, if so, to what extent. As a matter of economy we have to remember that these forms are already printed, and of course the right hon. Gentleman does not want to waste them. That may be some reason for using them, but, as taxpayers, we would sooner lose the cost of the printing than be put to the inconvenience of this extra form.

Captain BOWYER: May I ask whether, if the form be lost, it is impossible to get another one, and also who is the prescribed person who is going to inspect it?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I really think this Clause simplifies the present arrangement. Most people who are criticising this Bill are too expert. That is the trouble. They all know the number of cylinders of most cars in existence, but the ordinary user of a car who employs a chauffeur does not. In some cases I have had actually to take the cylinders out to find out what size they are. In this case all you have to do is to pay every year without filling in these very technical details.

Sir E. GEDDES: I am very sorry there should be this feeling in the Committee about this record, because it was devised as the most economical and simple way of imposing the new taxation. I am afraid I differ from my hon. Friend who thinks I made a mistake. I did not. You do not fill up any more forms. The Post Office was consulted, and gave most careful consideration, and came to the conclusion that this was the simplest and most economical way of giving these particulars each year, so that the girl at the Post Office could quite simply issue the appropriate licence. It is an essential part of the scheme. I do not wish to urge on the Committee in any way that the matter has been prejudiced, and if it were of minor importance, I would endeavour to meet the view which has been so strongly expressed by a great many Members of the Committee who are owners of cars themselves; but it is essential to the scheme. The Post Office could not undertake to do it otherwise, as it would mean an additional staff. It was done very largely to meet their views. They say, "If you will have the registration particulars sent on to us in this way, we can very readily issue a new licence every year," and it was devised as the most simple form. There is nothing sinister behind it. I do not think it will be found very complicated or onerous.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1, e), leave out the word "twenty" ["not exceeding twenty shillings"], and insert instead thereof the word "five."—[Mr. Atkey.]

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I raise a point of Order? There are some two pages of Amendments to paragraph (g). I was going to suggest, with a view to saving time, that you allow a general discussion to take place on the paragraph, on the understanding that those who have Amendments do not make long speeches, or do not make speeches at all, when we come to the actual Amendments. It has frequently been done before, and with such a vast number of Amendments, I think it would facilitate business.

Amendment proposed: In Sub-section (1), leave out paragraph (g).—[Mr. Atkey.]

Sir E. GEDDES: I think I may facilitate matters by stating where we stand in this matter. On Second Reading I said quite frankly that I thought the Clause could be interpreted in a way which went further than it ought to go. What I propose to do is to bring up on Report stage a new paragraph in substitution for paragraph (g), and which will only apply in circumstances involving the safety of the vehicle itself, not to individual vehicles, but to a class of vehicles, the safety of other users of the road or the suitability of the road, and that it should be on the application of the county council by the Minister after he has held a public inquiry. It is not for the purpose of preventing one vehicle competing against another, but is a practical point. I would ask the Committee not to limit this only to the third-class roads, but to the use of all roads where the question of safety comes in. It might be desirable to prohibit a certain class of vehicles on certain roads, even though they were high-class roads. I take it that by this suggestion the apprehensions of some hon. Members will be removed.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I appreciate the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has met the various Amendments. Could he let us have the new paragraph one day before the Report stage?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am afraid we shall have to take the Report of this Bill on Monday.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My Noble Friend (Lord E. Talbot) knows the ex-seeding difficulty of putting down Amendments on the Report stage with Mr.
Speaker in the Chair. With regard to manuscript Amendments it is not easy work.

Sir E. GEDDES: If the hon. Members who are particularly interested would let me know, I will call a conference for Monday and discuss the paragraph on the lines suggested, and we will then know where we are.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think that is an admirable suggestion, and I gladly accept it.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BABAZON: Is this closing of roads only to take place on the application of the county council, because in many cases a county council might be running their own service, which would be upset if a particular road that should be closed were closed? Consequently, I think that the Ministry should have power to hold an inquiry without the original application coming from the county council.

Viscount CURZON: I am strongly in favour of the Ministry having power to close roads which it is desirable to close for reasons of public safety, but I do hope that it will not rest entirely with the local authorities to apply to the Ministry to hold an inquiry. Will this prohibition be of a permanent character, or could not the right hon. Gentleman in his new Clause embody a provision that the prohibition would be only for a certain time?

Sir E. GEDDES: The point which the Noble Lord mentions is before me, and I propose to provide something of the kind in the new Clause. The point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman raises presents great difficulty, because if you are going to allow anybody to ask for an inquiry you are going to entail a tremendous amount of work all over the country, as you will have people wanting to have roads closed here, there, and everywhere. We are so much in sympathy with this Clause that if hon. Members will accept the suggestion which I made I would now name 12 o'clock on Monday at the Ministry of Transport, and if hon. Members interested who have got Amendments down will come there I will try to meet them on the Clause as far as I can. I do not think there is much between us, and it is more or less a matter of getting the Clause into shape.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Some of us who have Amendments down may not be able to attend on Monday. I dare say before then the right hon. Gentleman will have got the Clause more or less sketched out. It is important that at this stage he should be aware of what we want. There is an Amendment by the right hon. Member for the City of London which would limit the power of closing the highway to those cases where the use of the highway would be dangerous to such vehicles. This Amendment is put down because otherwise there is a possibility that certain local authorities who have an interest in tramway undertakings which are perhaps affected by the competition of motor omnibuses might exercise power to get these roads closed to the vehicles in competition with the municipal service.

Sir E. GEDDES: I have already dealt with that. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was not in the Chamber at the time. I mentioned that the conditions were safety for the vehicle, safety for the users of the road, or the unsuitability of the road.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman make the condition that, in the event of permission being given to have a road closed, notices stating that it is closed must be placed by the county council at a point at least five miles away, or at some point where the route can be diverted to another road, so that the journey may be continued?

Mr. G. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has met us on these Amendments in a fair and frank manner, and, as far as I am concerned, I shall be only too happy to co-operate with him on Monday in producing an effective Clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: After Sub-section (1) insert a new Sub-section—
(2) Every Regulation made under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an address is presented to His Majesty within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Regulations is laid before it praying that the Regulation may be annulled His Majesty in Council may annul the Regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."—[Sir E. Geddes.]

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, i,), to insert a new paragraph—
(j) prohibiting on all highways vehicles that are especially damaging to roads through bad design.
I want to know what are the Minister's present powers for the regulation of vehicles which do needless damage to the roads. As an old railwayman the right hon. Gentleman would object to any locomotive running on a railway and doing the track damage, but in the case of heavy motor vehicles one can design a car in any way one likes, irrespective of the damage that might be done to the roads. I think the right hon. Gentleman should give to the manufacturers notice that some of their designs must be altered.

Mr. NEAL: There are no such powers vested in the Minister at present, and they would have to be conferred by special legislation dealing with motor traffic generally. The matter could be considered at the conference which has been suggested.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. BILLING: Would it not be possible for the Minister to take powers and to lay it down that on and after a certain date no vehicle that is not rubber-shod will be allowed on the roads? Possibly 75 per cent. of the damage done by iron-shod vehicles would be saved were they shod with rubber tyres. In America, most of the heavy traffic is run on pneumatic tyres, because they find it is economical not only to the people who pay for the roads, but the people who have to provide the vehicles. I fail to see why that should not be done here. With respect to the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion as to the design of the vehicle, that would come into line automatically, because the designer, in laying out a plan of a motor car, if the car is to be rubber shod, will naturally take into consideration the distribution of weight to prevent the needless wearing out of the tyre by the road. That consideration is not given in the case of the iron-shod vehicles. More particularly is that shown by the steering of the "Foden" wagon, which does an immense amount of damage on the road. Can the right hon. Gentleman not put a definite date in the Bill, after which it shall be obligatory on the users of the road to employ rubber-tyred vehicles. I cannot see any possible excuse
why one man should be allowed, under a sense of false economy, to drive ironshod vehicles with a narrow gauge and do an immense amount of damage. Having regard to the enormous powers of the Minister in this Bill, that one little power would be more economically sound than most of the rest of the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: In view of what was said by the hon. Member (Mr. Neal), I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), leave out the word "fifty," and insert instead thereof the word "twenty."—[Mr. Atkey.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Sir E. Geddes.]

Committee report Progress: to sit again upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1919 (DRAFT RULES).

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I beg to move,
That the Draft Rules under Section 1 of the Government of India Act, 1919, which were presented on the 11th day of August be approved, subject, however, to the following modifications, namely:
Page 3, Rule 1 (2), at end, insert 'and for different provisions of these Rules.'
Page 7, Rule 15 (1), line 5, leave out from 'jurisdiction' to the end of the sub-rule, and insert 'The share so allocated shall be three pies on each rupee brought under assessment under the said Act in respect of which the Income Tax assessed has been collected.'
Page 7, Rule 15 (2), line 6, leave out from 'equivalent' to the end of the sub-rule, and insert 'Of the amount which would have accrued to the local government in the year 1920–21 (after deducting the provincial share of the cost of special Income Tax establishments in that year) had the pie-rate fixed under sub-rule (1) been applied in that year, due allowance being made for any abnormal delays in the collection of the tax.'
Page 9, Rule 20, after 'contributions,' insert 'and assignments.'
Page 11, Rule 27 (2), at end, insert,—
(3) The local government of a Governor's province shall have power to sanction any expenditure on transferred subjects which relates to the heads enumerated in Section 72D (3) of the Act, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State in Council or of the Governor-General in Council, if such approval is required by any rule for the time being in force.
Page 16, Rule 41, leave out from the beginning of the rule down to 'without,' and insert 'No allowance and no special or personal pay shall be sanctioned for any post or class of post or for any Government servant.'
Page 21, Schedule I., Part I., entry 44, at end, insert '45. The Public Service Commission,' and re-number entries 45 and 46 as 46 and 47.
Page 27, Schedule I., Part II., entry 47, leave out "other public services within the province,' and insert 'public services within the province, other than all-India services.'
I want to ask the assent of the House to these sets of Rules under the Government of India Act, and I hope the House will agree that this stage is purely formal. The Rules have been before the House, either in draft or in their completed form as they left the Joint Committee of the two Houses, for the last two months, and I am glad to see that no Amendments have appeared on the Paper. They carry out, I believe, entirely the intentions of Parliament in passing the Act of last year, and the intention in adopting this procedure, which was indicated in the Statute, was in order that the. House might satisfy itself that the Rules were in conformity with the Act and carried out the Clauses, which were after all only a skeleton of the whole scheme incorporated in that Act. There is nothing new in them. They have been drawn up by the Government of India and the local governments, examined in the India Office, submitted to the scrutiny of the Joint Committee of both Houses, and reported with a view mainly to these Amendments. The Amendments which appear under my name on the Paper are not of any substance. They passed through another place last week, and unless some hon. Member wishes an explanation of any one in detail, I will content myself at this stage by saying that though technical, they are of no importance, and mainly drafting Amendments.

Colonel YATE: As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, no Amendments have been moved to these Rules, and I think it would be impossible for us to move Amendments or to make any alterations in them whatsoever. These Rules have been drawn up by the authorities in India, by the men who presumably are best fitted to make these Rules, and I would say the only men who really are qualified to draw them up. To attempt, therefore, to criticise them at the present moment would be a great mistake. No Member of the other House criticised them in any way, and I do not think we can do it either in this House. There is one thing, however, that I was particularly glad to see, and that was the action taken in the other House, when Lord Selborne called attention to what he called the persistent stream of calumnies and lies directed against British rule in that country and against the acts and policy of the Government of India. He also called the attention of the Government of India to the dire consequences that might ensue, and the tremendous responsibility that would rest upon them, if they failed to take the necessary steps to counteract those calumnies and lies. I would like to support what Lord Selborne said upon that point most entirely. To my mind, as far as I can judge, the Government of India has delayed far too long in putting a stop to these things. In the Indian papers I see this campaign is called "a campaign of calumny and vilification," and that campaign, I am sorry to say, seems to be general throughout India at the present time. We have had no opportunity of discussing any Indian question in this House, and what I would like to ask is a statement as to whether the leaders of these men, who are carrying on this campaign and making these appeals in India to race hatred and religious fanaticism, are the very same men who came over here last year to support the Secretary of State in the Reform Bill for India?

Mr. MONTAGU: They are not.

Colonel YATE: I am very glad to hear it. We know that last year a dozen men from the National Congress came over to give evidence before the Select Committee, and probably another dozen members of various societies like the Home Rule League, and it appeared to me, from what I could gather from the papers, that some
of these very men are the leaders of the present agitation in India. However, whoever are the leaders of that agitation now going on in India, I think the Indian papers very rightly point out that the policy of do-nothing pursued by the Government of India is being mistaken in India for timidity and weakness, and this policy may lead very soon to a fresh outbreak of popular disorder, and, as the India papers say, the quelling of such an outbreak may have most disastrous consequenes. I honestly confess I look at the papers every morning with dread that I may hear of a fresh outbreak. We have seen already how a kindly and much respected district officer in India has been brutally assassinated—hacked to pieces with swords in his own bungalow—through religious fanatacism, influenced by the agitators now in India, and that sort of thing once started in India, nobody knows where it will end. These very agitators now causing this trouble in India, we must not forget, are the very same men so far as I know—

Captain BROWN: On a point of Order. Might I ask what this has got to do with the present Bill before the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not a Bill. It is a proposal to ratify certain Draft Rules, and I suppose the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks that the Rules should not be ratified. Whether that would prevent the agitation or not, I do not know. I do not know enough about India to say. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will explain the connection.

Colonel YATE: No, Sir; I think the Rules ought to be accepted. None of us can attempt to criticise these Rules, or move their rejection, but I was trying to follow the argument used in the other House by Lord Selborne and others.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There are no Rules of Order there.

Colonel YATE: And to call attention to the state of things in India, as this is the only opportunity we shall have of doing so.

Mr. SPEAKER: Unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman can show some connection between the dangers he anticipates and the acceptance of these Rules, I do not think he is in order. We cannot discuss the general state of India.

Colonel YATE: I acknowledge your ruling. I am sorry I have not the opportunity of calling attention to what, I think, is a very dangerous state of things in India. However, there is one thing I think I may be permitted to say, and that is that when the Rules are passed, unless the guiding hand of Great Britain is kept up to its full strength in India and steps are taken to put a stop to this campaign of calumny and vituperation, India will be reduced to the chaos in which it was a hundred years ago. I can only say that the danger is great to-day and getting greater every day. I hope this policy of deserting our friends and favouring those who conduct agitations will now be finally stopped; otherwise I cannot say what the result will be.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add the words "and subject to these Rules being made applicable to Burma."
I can only hope that the prophecies of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Yate) will not be in any way carried out. From all I hear from India I gather the constitutional party is making great headway, and I think a great deal of this is due to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood); for, whatever hon. Members think of his politics, he has done a great service for the Empire in this matter. I quite agree with what has been said to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Yate) that we really cannot go into the details of all these Rules, but there are many people to consider that the present scheme of diarchy, with all its implications, would work well in Burma. I feel strongly on this point. I raised it last December when the Government of India Bill went through the House. The Burmese have conducted their agitation on strictly constitutional
lines. There is no extremist party there, and no separatists party. There is a section which wishes to separate from the Government of India for local purposes, but there is no section of the Burmese who propose to cut adrift from the British Empire.
The right hon. Gentleman himself paid a high tribute to that, and also to the high literary attainments that the Burmese of the educated class have reached. It will be a bad thing if it goes forth to the Empire that only those who agitate and go in for murder and outrage should get things, whilst the people who stick to constitutional methods do not get anything. For that reason alone I think this Amendment deserves serious consideration. The Burmese have had their own king for many centuries. Local notables have great powers of self-government in the provinces of Burma. I have paid short visits to these countries, and I have met these people. Anyone who says that the Indians are fit for this measure of self-government must admit that the Burmese are equally fitted; in deed, many people say the Burmese are more fitted for self-government than the Indians. It may, of course, not be convenient immediately to apply these Rules to Burma, but a loop-hole was made in the Bill for creating Burma into a self-governing province. I gather that the bulk of the political classes in Burma are more in favour of a system of diarchy than their brethren in India. They recognise it has good points for Burma in a way the Indians do not. I do not want to press this point until I have heard what the right hon. Gentleman—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,

The House was Adjourned at half after Seven of the Clock till Monday next (13th December).